Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29103188›Full record

ReviewCurrent treatment options in gastroenterology2017

Management of Inflammatory Fluid Collections and Walled-Off Pancreatic Necrosis.

Apeksha Shah, Richard Denicola, Cynthia Edirisuriya, Ali A Siddiqui

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current treatment options in gastroenterology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Apeksha ShahDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Richard DenicolaDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Cynthia EdirisuriyaDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Ali A SiddiquiDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA. asiddiqu2004@gmail.com.
Thomas Jefferson University Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

opinion statementPancreatic fluid collections are a frequent complication of acute pancreatitis. The revised Atlanta criterion classifies chronic fluid collections into pseudocysts and walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WON). Symptomatic PFCs require drainage options that include surgical, percutaneous, or endoscopic approaches. With the advent of newer and more advanced endoscopic tools and expertise, minimally invasive endoscopic drainage has now become the preferred approach. An endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided approach for pancreatic fluid collection drainage is now the preferred endoscopic approach. Both plastic stents and metal stents are efficacious and safe; however, metal stents may offer an advantage, especially in infected pseudocysts and in WON. Direct endoscopic necrosectomy is often required in WON. Lumen apposing metal stents allow for direct endoscopic necrosectomy and debridement through the stent lumen and are now preferred in these patients. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with pancreatic duct exploration should be performed concurrent to PFC drainage in patients with suspected PD disruption. PD disruption is associated with an increased severity of pancreatitis, an increased risk of recurrent attacks of pancreatitis and long-term complications, and a decreased rate of PFC resolution after drainage. Ideally, pancreatic ductal disruption should be bridged with endoscopic stenting.

Indexed as

EndoscopyPancreatic fluid collectionsPancreatic pseudocystPancreatic walled-off necrosisStents

Identifiers

PMID29103188
OpenAlexW2766549622

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.