ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2021
Analysis of Risk Factors in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography-Related Immediate and Delayed Hemorrhage.
Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Indication for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and development of hemorrhage: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Assessment of safety and adverse events in endoscopic radiofrequency ablation for malignant biliary obstruction.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Factors and techniques associated with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography outcomes in patients with periampullary diverticulum: Results from a large tertiary center.Saudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology AssociationArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsHemorrhage is a serious complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). However, there is a lack of comparative studies on immediate and delayed hemorrhage. The present study aims to explore the relevant risk factors of immediate and delayed hemorrhage of ERCP and compare the similarities and differences.
methodsERCP cases conducted by our hospital between January 2017 and January 2020 were selected for retrospective analysis. Then age, gender, basic disease, laboratory examinations, and other relevant clinical information were collected for the analysis.
resultsA total of 1009 ERCP cases were included in the present study. Among these cases, 76 patients were in the immediate hemorrhage group, 28 patients were in the delayed hemorrhage group, and 905 patients were in the non-hemorrhage group. The univariate analysis revealed that choledocholithiasis, pre-cut, and endoscopic papillary sphincterotomy (EST) were risk factors for immediate hemorrhage, while cholangitis, jaundice, coronary heart disease, pre-cut, high postoperative lipase at four hours and amylase at 24 h, high postoperative leukocyte, urea, bilirubin, low postoperative platelet counts and fibrinogen, and prolonged prothrombin time (PT) and thrombin time (TT) were risk factors for delayed hemorrhage. The logistic regression analysis revealed that EST, pre-cut, and activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) were independent risk factors for immediate hemorrhage, while high amylase at 24 h after ERCP, high postoperative urea, prolonged TT, and coronary heart disease were independent risk factors for delayed hemorrhage.
conclusionsPre-cut was a common risk factor for immediate and delayed hemorrhage, while other risk factors were different.
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.