Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33463556›Full record

ArticleEndoscopic ultrasound

EUS-guided pelvic drainage: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Banreet Singh Dhindsa, Yassin Naga, Syed Mohsin Saghir, Amaninder Dhaliwal, Daryl Ramai, Chad Cross, Shailender Singh, Ishfaq Bhat, Douglas G Adler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Endoscopic ultrasound. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided abscess drainage for non-pancreatic abscesses: A retrospective study.JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Futuristic Developments and Applications in Endoluminal Stenting.Gastroenterology research and practice · 2022
    Review
  20. Review
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

9 authors.

Banreet Singh DhindsaDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, 982000 Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA.
Yassin NagaDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Nevada, Las Vegas School of Medicine, Las Vegas, NV, USA.
Syed Mohsin SaghirDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Nevada, Las Vegas School of Medicine, Las Vegas, NV, USA.
Amaninder DhaliwalDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA.
Daryl RamaiDepartment of Internal Medicine, The Brooklyn Hospital Center, Brooklyn, New York, USA.
Chad CrossDepartment of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Nevada Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV, USA.
Shailender SinghDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, 982000 Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA.
Ishfaq BhatDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, 982000 Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA.
Douglas G AdlerDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Utah, School of Medicine, Huntsman Cancer Center, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectivesEUS-guided pelvic abscess drainage (EUS-PAD) is a procedure that utilizes an echoendoscope to visualize an area of interest for needle insertion and placement of a stent, catheter, or both for drainage of the target abscess. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis for the safety and efficacy of EUS-PAD. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe conducted a comprehensive search of several databases and conference proceedings including PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and Web of Science databases (earliest inception to February 2020). The primary outcomes for this study were the technical and clinical success of EUS-PAD. The secondary outcomes assessed for this study were adverse events of the procedure and subgroup analysis of individual adverse events.

resultsEight studies with a total of 135 patients combined were included in our analysis. The rate of technical success was 100% and the calculated pooled rate of clinical success was 92% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 87%, 98%; P = 0.31; I

conclusionEUS-PAD offers a viable alternative that can minimize the need for surgical intervention in the drainage of pelvic abscesses. EUS-PAD has also demonstrated long-term clinical success with an acceptable rate of complications.

Indexed as

abscessdrainageEUSmeta-analysispelvic

Identifiers

PMID33463556
PMCPMC8248303

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.