ReviewDer Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen2018
[Duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection in chronic pancreatitis : Limitations of the Heidelberg multicenter ChroPac study].
Review in Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Premalignant cystic neoplasms and neuroendocrine tumors of the pancreatic head-Is the Kausch-Whipple resection an adequate treatment?]Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024Review
- [Duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection : A local parenchyma-sparing treatment of benign and premalignant tumors of the pancreatic head].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The data published in Der Chirurg and The Lancet on the results of the multicenter ChroPac study comparing results of 115 patients in the duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection (DPPHR) group with 111 patients in the pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) group, recommend partial PD as the first line procedure for chronic pancreatitis (CP). This is based on the significantly higher frequency of rehospitalization assigned to CP in the DPPHR group and data derived from post hoc meta-analysis about higher frequency of reoperations in the DPPHR group. Based on the presented data of the intention-to-treat analysis it is difficult to support the authors' recommendation of PD as the first line procedure for CP. The critical points are substantial heterogeneity of the different surgical procedures in the DPPHR group (20%) and PD group (13.5%) and a heterogeneity with respect to the number of patients with very advanced CP in the DPPHR group but not in the PD group. The data on the new onset of diabetes and endocrine insufficiency after surgery are not the result of measuring the preoperative and postoperative status of glucose metabolism and degree of exocrine dysfunction but are based on patient records. The advantages and/or disadvantages of the local parenchyma-sparing pancreatic head resection for CP compared to PD results of the published monocentric randomized controlled studies (RCT) more closely verify the clinical evidence than those of the ChroPac trial.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.