Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29607399›Full record

ArticleEndoscopy international open2018

Endoscopic versus percutaneous management for symptomatic pancreatic fluid collections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Muhammad Ali Khan, Tariq Hammad, Zubair Khan, Wade Lee, Monica Gaidhane, Amy Tyberg, Michel Kahaleh

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Endoscopy international open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Guided Versus Percutaneous Drainage for the Recurrent Pancreatic Fluid Collections.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2019
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Endotherapy for pancreatic necrosis: An update.JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2019
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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 at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Muhammad Ali KhanDivision of Gastroenterology, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN, USA.
Tariq HammadDivision of Gastroenterology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
Zubair KhanDivision of Gastroenterology, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH, USA.
Wade LeeMulford and Carlson Libraries, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH, USA.
Monica GaidhaneDepartment of Medicine - Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital.
Amy TybergDepartment of Medicine - Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital.
Michel KahalehDepartment of Medicine - Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital.
Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital · USUniversity of Toledo · USBaylor College of Medicine · USRutgers, The State University of New Jersey · USUniversity of Tennessee Health Science Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSymptomatic pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) are managed by surgical, percutaneous, or endoscopic drainage. Due to morbidity associated with surgical drainage, percutaneous and/or endoscopic options have increasingly been used as initial management.

aimsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of endoscopic versus percutaneous drainage for management of PFCs.

methodsWe searched several databases from inception through 31 August 2017 to identify comparative studies using endoscopic or percutaneous drainage for PFCs. Our primary outcome was clinical success. Secondary outcomes were technical success, adverse events (AE), rates of recurrence, requirement for subsequent procedures, and length of stay in hospital. Pooled risk ratios (RR) and mean difference (MD) were calculated for categorical and continuous outcomes, respectively.

resultsSeven studies with 490 patients were included in the final analysis. Pooled RR for clinical success was 0.40 (0.26, 0.61),

conclusionsEndoscopic drainage should be the preferred therapeutic modality for PFCs compared to percutaneous drainage as it is associated with significantly better clinical success, a lower re-intervention rate, and a shorter hospital length of stay.

Identifiers

PMID29607399
PMCPMC5876036
OpenAlexW2794730484

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.