Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28405329›Full record

ArticleUnited European gastroenterology journal2017

The impact of prophylactic pancreatic stenting on post-ERCP pancreatitis: A nationwide, register-based study.

Greger Olsson, Jeanne Lübbe, Urban Arnelo, Eduard Jonas, Björn Törnqvist, Lars Lundell, Lars Enochsson

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in United European gastroenterology journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04145336 (7 cm vs. 5 cm Pancreatic Stents for the Prevention of Post-ERCP Pancreatitis in High-risk Patients), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT04145336 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

7 cm vs. 5 cm Pancreatic Stents for the Prevention of Post-ERCP Pancreatitis in High-risk Patients: a Multicentre, Single-blinded, Randomised Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorAir Force Military Medical University, ChinaRan2019 to 2020Enrolled800ConditionsPost-ERCP Acute PancreatitisArms5cm 5-Fr PDS, 7cm 5-Fr PDS, Indomethacin
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Greger OlssonDivision of Surgery, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Surgery, Highland Hospital, Eksjö, Sweden.
Jeanne LübbeDivision of Surgery, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; Division of Surgery, Tygerberg Hospital and Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa.
Urban ArneloDivision of Surgery, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; Center for Digestive Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Eduard JonasDivision of Surgery, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; Center for Digestive Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Björn TörnqvistDivision of Surgery, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Clinical Sciences, Danderyd Hospital, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Lars LundellDivision of Surgery, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; Center for Digestive Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Lars EnochssonDivision of Surgery, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; Center for Digestive Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectivesThe role of prophylactic pancreatic stenting (PS) in preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) has yet to be determined. Most previous studies show beneficial effects in reducing PEP when prophylactic pancreatic stents are used, especially in high-risk ERCP procedures. The present study aimed to address the use of PS in a nationwide register-based study in which the primary outcome was the prophylactic effect of PS in reducing PEP.

methodsAll ERCP-procedures registered in the nationwide Swedish Registry for Gallstone Surgery and ERCP (GallRiks) between 2006 and 2014 were studied. The primary outcome was PEP but we also studied other peri- and postoperative complication rates.

resultsData from 43,595 ERCP procedures were analyzed. In the subgroup of patients who received PS with a total diameter ≤ 5 Fr, the risk of PEP increased nearly four times compared to those who received PS with a total diameter of >5 Fr (OR 3.58; 95% CI 1.40-11.07). Furthermore, patients who received PS of >5 Fr and >5 cm had a significantly lower pancreatitis frequency compared to those with shorter stents of the same diameter (1.39% vs 15.79%;

conclusionsPS with a diameter of >5 Fr and a length of >5 cm seems to have a better protective effect against PEP, compared to shorter and thinner stents. However, in the present version of GallRiks it is not possible to differentiate the exact type of pancreatic stent (apart from material, length and diameter) that has been introduced, so our conclusion must be interpreted with caution.

Indexed as

complication ratesERCPpancreatic stentspancreatitisprophylaxis

Identifiers

PMID28405329
PMCPMC5384550

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.