Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33948714›Full record

SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2021

Pain relief in chronic pancreatitis: endoscopic or surgical treatment? a systematic review with meta-analysis.

Pastor Joaquín Ortiz Mendieta, Vitor Massaro Takamatsu Sagae, Igor Braga Ribeiro, Diogo Turiani Hourneaux de Moura, Maria Vitória Cury Vieira Scatimburgo, Bruno Salomao Hirsch, Rodrigo Silva de Paula Rocha, Thiago Arantes de Carvalho Visconti, Sergio A Sánchez-Luna, Wanderley Marques Bernardo and 1 more

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.3field-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.

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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Observational
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Pain in chronic pancreatitis: What can we do today?World journal of methodology · 2024
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

11 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Pastor Joaquín Ortiz MendietaServiço de Endoscopia Gastrointestinal do Hospital das Clínicas HCFMUSP, Departamento de Gastroenterologia, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Vitor Massaro Takamatsu SagaeServiço de Endoscopia Gastrointestinal do Hospital das Clínicas HCFMUSP, Departamento de Gastroenterologia, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Igor Braga RibeiroServiço de Endoscopia Gastrointestinal do Hospital das Clínicas HCFMUSP, Departamento de Gastroenterologia, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil. igorbraga1@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1844-8973
Diogo Turiani Hourneaux de MouraServiço de Endoscopia Gastrointestinal do Hospital das Clínicas HCFMUSP, Departamento de Gastroenterologia, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Maria Vitória Cury Vieira ScatimburgoServiço de Endoscopia Gastrointestinal do Hospital das Clínicas HCFMUSP, Departamento de Gastroenterologia, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Bruno Salomao HirschServiço de Endoscopia Gastrointestinal do Hospital das Clínicas HCFMUSP, Departamento de Gastroenterologia, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Rodrigo Silva de Paula RochaServiço de Endoscopia Gastrointestinal do Hospital das Clínicas HCFMUSP, Departamento de Gastroenterologia, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Thiago Arantes de Carvalho ViscontiServiço de Endoscopia Gastrointestinal do Hospital das Clínicas HCFMUSP, Departamento de Gastroenterologia, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Sergio A Sánchez-LunaCenter for Advanced Endoscopy, Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Wanderley Marques BernardoServiço de Endoscopia Gastrointestinal do Hospital das Clínicas HCFMUSP, Departamento de Gastroenterologia, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Eduardo Guimarães Hourneaux de MouraServiço de Endoscopia Gastrointestinal do Hospital das Clínicas HCFMUSP, Departamento de Gastroenterologia, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo · BRAllegheny Health Network · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsPain is one of the consequences of chronic pancreatitis (CP) that has the greatest impact on the quality of life of patients. Endoscopic and surgical interventions, by producing a decrease in intraductal pancreatic pressure, can provide pain relief. This is the first systematic review that includes only randomized clinical trials (RTCs) comparing outcomes in the short-term (less than 2 years) and long-term (more than 2 years) between these two types of interventions. MATERIAL AND

methodsA comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases to identify RTCs comparing short and long-term pain relief, procedural complications, and days of hospitalization between endoscopic and surgical interventions was performed following the PRISMA guidelines.

resultsThree RCTs evaluating a total of 199 patients (99 in the endoscopy group and 100 in the surgery group) were included in this study. Surgical interventions provided complete pain relief, with statistical difference, in the long-term (16,4% vs 35.7%; RD 0.19; 95% CI 0.03-0.35; p = 0.02; I2 = 0%), without significant difference in short-term (17.5% vs 31.2%; RD 0.14; 95% CI -0.01-0.28; p = 0.07; I2 = 0%) when compared to endoscopy. There was no statistical difference in short-term (17.5% vs 28.1%; RD 0.11; 95% CI -0.04-0.25; p = 0.15; I2 = 0%) and long-term (34% vs 41.1%; RD 0.07; 95% CI -0.10-0.24; p = 0.42; I2 0%) in partial relief of pain between both interventions. In the short-term, both complications (34.9% vs 29.7%; RD 0.05; 95% CI -0.10-0.21; p = 0.50; I2 = 48%) and days of hospitalization (MD -1.02; 95% CI -2.61-0.58; p = 0.21; I2 = 0%) showed no significant differences.

conclusionSurgical interventions showed superior results when compared to endoscopy in terms of complete long-term pain relief. The number of complications and length of hospitalization in both groups were similar.

Indexed as

Pancreatitis, ChronicQuality of LifeEndoscopyHumansPainPain ManagementChronic pancreatitis (CP)EndoscopyLithotripsyPainSurgery

Identifiers

PMID33948714
OpenAlexW3158788489

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.