SynthesisDigestive diseases and sciences2019
Endocut Versus Conventional Blended Electrosurgical Current for Endoscopic Biliary Sphincterotomy: A Meta-Analysis of Complications.
Synthesis in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Guideline
- Guideline
- Pure cut vs. Endocut in endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.Endoscopy international open · 2024Review
- Safety of different electrocautery modes for endoscopic sphincterotomy: a Bayesian network meta-analysis.Therapeutic advances in gastrointestinal endoscopyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsEndoscopic biliary sphincterotomy (EST) is commonly performed during therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), but is an independent risk factor for post-ERCP pancreatitis, bleeding and duodenal perforation. These are partly ascribed to the electrosurgical current mode used for EST, and currently the optimal current model for EST remains controversial. In this study, we aimed to compare the rate of complications undergoing EST using the Endocut versus the blended current.
methodsA systematic search of databases was performed for relevant published and prospective studies including randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to compare Endocut with blended current modes for EST. Data were collected from inception until 1 July 2018, using post-ERCP pancreatitis, bleeding and perforation as primary outcomes.
resultsThree RCTs including a total of 594 patients met the inclusion criteria. Our meta-analysis results showed the rate of post-ERCP pancreatitis, primarily mild to moderate pancreatitis, was no different between Endocut versus blended current modes [risk ratio (RR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25-1.52, P = 0.29]. However, the risk of endoscopically bleeding events, primarily mild bleeding, was lower in studies using Endocut versus blended current (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31-0.95, P = 0.03). Notably, none of the patients experienced perforation in these three trials.
conclusionsThe rate of post-ERCP pancreatitis was not significantly different when using the Endocut versus blended current during EST. Nevertheless, compared with the blended current, Endocut reduced the incidence of endoscopically evident bleeding; however, the available data were insufficient to assess the perforation risk.
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.