Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28653082›Full record

ReviewJournal of gastroenterology2017

Clinical practice guideline for post-ERCP pancreatitis.

Tetsuya Mine, Toshio Morizane, Yoshiaki Kawaguchi, Ryukichi Akashi, Keiji Hanada, Tetsuhide Ito, Atsushi Kanno, Mitsuhiro Kida, Hiroyuki Miyagawa, Taketo Yamaguchi and 3 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of gastroenterology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05542784 (Modified Laparoendoscopic Rendezvous for Secondary Choledocholithiasis), which is not on this map. Cited by 53 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–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.

NCT05542784 unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Modified Laparoendoscopic Rendezvous for Secondary Choledocholithiasis: a Nonrandomized Controlled Clinical Study

TypeobservationalSponsorShenzhen Second People's HospitalRan2022 to 2025Enrolled90ConditionsCholedocholithiasisArmsModified LERV
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

53 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

13 authors.

Tetsuya MineTokai University, School of Medicine, Isehara, Japan. tetsu-m@is.icc.u-tokai.ac.jp.
Toshio MorizaneJapan Council for Quality Health Care, Tokyo, Japan.
Yoshiaki KawaguchiTokai University, School of Medicine, Isehara, Japan.
Ryukichi AkashiKumamoto City Medical Association Health Care Center, Kumamoto, Japan.
Keiji HanadaOnomichi General Hospital, Onomichi, Japan.
Tetsuhide ItoGraduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan.
Atsushi KannoDepartment of Gastroenterology, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan.
Mitsuhiro KidaKitasato University School of Medicine, Sagamihara, Japan.
Hiroyuki MiyagawaSapporo-Kosei General Hospital, Sapporo, Japan.
Taketo YamaguchiChiba Cancer Center, Chiba, Japan.
Toshihiko MayumiUniversity of Occupational and Environmental Health, Kitakyushu, Japan.
Yoshifumi TakeyamaFaculty of Medicine, Kinki University Hospital, Osakasayama, Japan.
Tooru ShimosegawaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEndoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERPC) is used for the diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic and biliary diseases. Post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) is a complication which needs special care and clinical practice guideline for this morbidity is also needed.

methodsThe key clinical issues of diagnosis and treatment of PEP were listed and checked, and then the clinical questions were formulated. PubMed (MEDLINE) and Ichushi-web (Japanese medical literature) were used as databases. For the study of diagnostic test accuracy, items similar to QUADAS-2, i.e., random selection from a population to which the diagnostic test is applied, blinding of index tests and reference tests, completeness of reference standard, completeness of test implementations, the same timing of tests, and missing data were assessed as well as the indirectness of the study subjects, index tests, reference standard, and outcomes. Grading of recommendations was determined as strong or weak. In clinical practice, the judgment of attending doctors should be more important than recommendations described in clinical practice guidelines. Gastroenterologists are the target users of this clinical practice guideline. General practitioners or general citizens are not supposed to use this guideline. The guideline committee has decided to include wide clinical issues such as etiological information, techniques of ERCP, the diagnosis, treatments, and monitoring of PEP in this guideline.

resultsIn this concise report, we described ten clinical questions, recommendations, and explanations pertaining to risk factors, diagnosis, prognostic factors, treatments, and preventive interventions in the medical practice for PEP.

conclusionsWe reported here the essence of the clinical practice guideline for PEP.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicCholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic RetrogradeHumansPancreatitisPostoperative ComplicationsRisk FactorsClinical guidelineEndoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERPC)Post-ERCP pancreatitis

Identifiers

PMID28653082

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.