Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32213054›Full record

SynthesisUnited European gastroenterology journal2020

Endoscopic papillectomy for neoplastic ampullary lesions: A systematic review with pooled analysis.

Marco Spadaccini, Alessandro Fugazza, Leonardo Frazzoni, Milena Di Leo, Francesco Auriemma, Silvia Carrara, Roberta Maselli, Piera Alessia Galtieri, Viveksandeep Thoguluva Chandrasekar, Lorenzo Fuccio and 5 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in United European gastroenterology journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05690412 (Efficacy and Safety of Endoscopic Papillectomy in the Treatment of Ampullary Neoplasms), which is not on this map. Cited by 40 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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.

NCT05690412 unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Efficacy and Safety of Endoscopic Papillectomy in the Treatment of Ampullary Neoplasms: a Multicenter, Retrospective, Nationwide Study.

TypeobservationalSponsorAzienda Unità Sanitaria Locale della RomagnaRan2022 to 2023Enrolled400ConditionsAmpullary Adenoma, Ampulla of Vater Adenoma, Ampullary Cancer, Ampulla of Vater CancerArmsEndoscopic Papillectomy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 94 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Guideline
  4. Article
  5. Endoscopic Papillectomy for Ampullary Tumors in Older Patients: Balancing Oncologic Benefit and Geriatric Risk.Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Lost ampullary opening post endoscopic submucosal dissection: EUS-guided rendezvous shows the path.VideoGIE : an official video journal of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · 2025
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
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

15 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Marco SpadacciniDigestive Endoscopy Unit, Division of Gastroenterology, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, Milan, Italy.
Alessandro FugazzaDigestive Endoscopy Unit, Division of Gastroenterology, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, Milan, Italy.
Leonardo FrazzoniDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Milena Di LeoDigestive Endoscopy Unit, Division of Gastroenterology, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, Milan, Italy.
Francesco AuriemmaGastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit, Humanitas Mater Domini, Castellanza, Italy.
Silvia CarraraDigestive Endoscopy Unit, Division of Gastroenterology, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, Milan, Italy.
Roberta MaselliDigestive Endoscopy Unit, Division of Gastroenterology, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, Milan, Italy.
Piera Alessia GaltieriDigestive Endoscopy Unit, Division of Gastroenterology, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, Milan, Italy.
Viveksandeep Thoguluva ChandrasekarSchool of Medicine, University of Kansas, Kansas City, USA.
Lorenzo FuccioDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Emad AljahdliGastroenterology Unit, King Abdul Aziz University Hospital, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Cesare HassanDigestive Endoscopy Unit, Nuovo Regina Margherita Hospital, Rome, Italy.
Prateek SharmaSchool of Medicine, University of Kansas, Kansas City, USA.
Andrea AnderloniDigestive Endoscopy Unit, Division of Gastroenterology, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, Milan, Italy.
Alessandro RepiciDigestive Endoscopy Unit, Division of Gastroenterology, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, Milan, Italy.
Humanitas University · ITUniversity of Bologna · ITVeterans Health Administration · USHumanitas Mater Domini · ITKing Abdul Aziz University Hospital · SAOspedale Regina Margherita · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Endoscopic papillectomy (EP) is a viable therapy in ampullary lesions (AL). Many series have reported low morbidity and acceptable outcomes. We performed a systematic review with pooled analysis to assess the safety and efficacy of EP for AL. Electronic databases (Medline, Scopus and EMBASE) were searched up to September 2018. Studies that included patients with endoscopically resected AL were eligible. The rate of adverse events (AEs; primary outcome) and the rates of both technical and clinical efficacy outcomes were pooled by means of a random- or fixed-effects model to obtain a proportion with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Twenty-nine studies were included (1751 patients). The overall AE rate was 24.9%. The post-procedural pancreatitis rate was 11.9%, with the only factor affecting this outcome being prophylactic pancreatic stenting. The complete resection rate was 94.2%, with a rate of oncologically curative resection of 87.1%. The recurrence rate was 11.8% (follow-up: 9.6-84.5 months). EP is a relatively safe and effective option for AL. Our study might definitively suggest the protective role of prophylactic pancreatic stenting against post-procedural pancreatitis.

Indexed as

AdenomaAmpulla of VaterAsymptomatic DiseasesCommon Bile Duct NeoplasmsEndoscopy, Digestive SystemFollow-Up StudiesHumansNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalPancreatitisPostoperative ComplicationsStentsTreatment Outcomeadenomaampullary lesionduodenoscopeERCPpapillectomy

Identifiers

PMID32213054
PMCPMC7006004
OpenAlexW2965775929

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.