ArticleClinical endoscopy2019
A Nationwide Assessment of the "July Effect" and Predictors of Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Sepsis at Urban Teaching Hospitals in the United States.
Article in Clinical endoscopy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Nationwide Study of the "July Effect" Concerning Postpartum Hemorrhage and Its Risk Factors at Teaching Hospitals across the United States.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- July effect in clinical outcomes of esophagogastroduodenoscopy performed at teaching hospitals in the United States.Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center) · 2023Article
- Post-ERCP Pancreatitis: Prevention, Diagnosis and Management.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Review
- Article
- Increased ERCP volume improves cholangiogram interpretation: a new performance measure for ERCP training?Clinical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Predictors of postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography associated cholangitis: a retrospective cohort study.Turkish journal of medical sciences · 2022Article
- Is the July Effect Real in Patients Undergoing Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography?Clinical endoscopy · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 11 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsTo analyze the incidence of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) sepsis in the early (July to September) and later (October to June) academic months to assess the "July effect".
methodsThe National Inpatient Sample (2010-2014) was used to identify ERCP-related adult hospitalizations at urban teaching hospitals by applying relevant procedure codes from the International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision, Clinical Modification. Post-ERCP outcomes were compared between the early and later academic months. A multivariate analysis was performed to evaluate the odds of post-ERCP sepsis and its predictors.
resultsOf 481,193 ERCP procedures carried out at urban teaching hospitals, 124,934 were performed during the early academic months. The demographics were comparable for ERCP procedures performed during the early and later academic months. A higher incidence (9.4% vs. 8.8%, p<0.001) and odds (odds ratio [OR], 1.07) of post-ERCP sepsis were observed in ERCP performed during the early academic months. The in-hospital mortality rate (7% vs. 7.5%, p=0.072), length of stay, and total hospital charges in patients with post-ERCP sepsis were also equivalent between the 2 time points. Pre-ERCP cholangitis (OR, 3.20) and post-ERCP complications such as cholangitis (OR, 6.27), perforation (OR, 3.93), and hemorrhage (OR, 1.42) were significant predictors of higher post-ERCP sepsis in procedures performed during the early academic months.
conclusionThe July effect was present in the incidence of post-ERCP sepsis, and academic programs should take into consideration the predictors of post-ERCP sepsis to lower health-care burden.
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.