Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31192314›Full record

ArticleTherapeutic advances in gastrointestinal endoscopy

Comparative outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound-guided cystogastrostomy for peripancreatic fluid collections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Benjamin D Renelus, Daniel S Jamorabo, Hashroop K Gurm, Niel Dave, William M Briggs, Mukul Arya

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Therapeutic advances in gastrointestinal endoscopy. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Management of pancreatic fluid collections.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2022
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Advancements in the endoscopic treatment of pancreatic fluid collections.Chronic diseases and translational medicine · 2020
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Evaluation of theEndoscopic ultrasound
    Article
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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Benjamin D RenelusDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatobiliary Disease, New York-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital, Brooklyn, NY, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5399-1483
Daniel S JamoraboDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatobiliary Disease, New York-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital, Brooklyn, NY, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1002-2572
Hashroop K GurmDepartment of Medicine, New York-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital, Brooklyn, NY, USA.
Niel DaveDepartment of Medicine, New York-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital, Brooklyn, NY, USA.
William M BriggsDivision of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA.
Mukul AryaDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatobiliary Disease, New York-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital, Brooklyn, NY, USA.
NewYork–Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital · USCornell University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEndoscopic ultrasound-guided cystogastrostomy has become the first-line treatment for symptomatic peripancreatic fluid collections. The aim of this study is to analyze the efficacy and safety of cystogastrostomy via a meta-analysis of the literature.

methodsWe performed a systematic search of PubMed and Medline databases for studies published from January 2005 to May 2018. We included randomized controlled trials along with retrospective and prospective observational studies reporting endoscopic ultrasound-guided cystogastrostomy stent placement for peripancreatic fluid collections. The primary outcome for our meta-analysis was complete peripancreatic fluid collection resolution on imaging. Our secondary outcomes included comparative efficacy and safety of the procedure for pseudocysts and walled-off pancreatic necrosis using metal and plastic stents.

resultsSeventeen articles involving 1708 patients met our inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. Based upon the random effects model, the pooled technical success rate of cystogastrostomy was 88% (95% confidence interval = 83-92 with

conclusionEndoscopic ultrasound-guided cystogastrostomy stents are effective in the treatment of pancreatic pseudocysts and walled-off pancreatic necrosis. We found no difference in technical success or adverse event rates of drainage based on peripancreatic fluid collection type or stent used.

Indexed as

advanced endoscopycystogastrostomyperipancreatic fluid collection

Identifiers

PMID31192314
PMCPMC6537502
OpenAlexW2946081408

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.