SynthesisMedicine2018
A meta-analysis and systematic review of percutaneous catheter drainage in treating infected pancreatitis necrosis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Contrast-enhanced CT-based prediction models for early intervention efficacy and in-hospital mortality risk in acute necrotizing pancreatitis with persistent organ failure.European radiology · 2025Article
- Clinical, Radiological, and Endoscopic Features of Pancreatic Pseudocyst and Walled-Off Necrosis: How to Diagnose and How to Drain Them.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Article
- Surgical management of acute pancreatitis: Historical perspectives, challenges, and current management approaches.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2023Review
- Indian College of Radiology and Imaging Consensus Guidelines on Interventions in Pancreatitis.The Indian journal of radiology & imaging · 2022Review
- Impact of continuous local lavage on pancreatic juice-related postoperative complications: Three case reports.World journal of clinical cases · 2019Article
- A meta-analysis and systematic review of percutaneous catheter drainage in treating infected pancreatitis necrosis: Erratum.Medicine · 2019Article
- Comparison of endoscopicEndoscopic ultrasoundArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the current meta-analysis, we focus on the exploration of percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD) in terms of its overall safety as well as efficacy in the treatment of infected pancreatitis necrosis based on qualified studies.
methodsThe following electronic databases were searched to identify eligible studies through the use of index words updated to May 2018: PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase. Relative risk (RR) or mean difference (MD) along with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were utilized for the main outcomes.
resultsA total of 622 patients in the PCD group and 650 patients in the control group from 13 studies were included in the present meta-analysis. The aggregated results indicated that the incidence of bleeding was decreased significantly (RR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.25-0.70) in the PCD group as compared with the control group. In addition, PCD decreased the mortality (RR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.41-1.42), hospital duration (SMD: -0.22, 95% CI: -0.77 to -0.33), duration in intensive care unit (ICU) (SMD: -0.13, 95% CI: -0.30 to -0.04), pancreatic fistula (RR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.46-1.17), and organ failure (RR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.45-1.82) in comparison with the control group, but without statistical significance.
conclusionOur findings provide evidence for the treatment effect of PCD in the decrease of bleeding, mortality, duration in hospital and ICU, pancreatic fistula, organ failure as compared with the surgical treatment. In conclusion, further studies based on high-quality RCTs with larger sample size and long-term follow-ups are warranted for the confirmation of PCD efficacy in treating infected pancreatitis necrosis.
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.