Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34092971›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of gastroenterology2021

Pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: A narrative review.

Igor Braga Ribeiro, Epifanio Silvino do Monte Junior, Antonio Afonso Miranda Neto, Igor Mendonça Proença, Diogo Turiani Hourneaux de Moura, Mauricio Kazuyoshi Minata, Edson Ide, Marcos Eduardo Lera Dos Santos, Gustavo de Oliveira Luz, Sergio Eiji Matuguma and 3 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of gastroenterology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. IDCases · 2025
    Article
  10. Renalase peptides reduce pancreatitis severity in mice.American journal of physiology. Gastrointestinal and liver physiology · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

13 authors.

Igor Braga RibeiroDepartment of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit, University of São Paulo School of Medicine, São Paulo 05403-010, Brazil. igorbraga1@gmail.com.
Epifanio Silvino do Monte JuniorDepartment of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit, University of São Paulo School of Medicine, São Paulo 05403-010, Brazil.
Antonio Afonso Miranda NetoDepartment of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit, University of São Paulo School of Medicine, São Paulo 05403-010, Brazil.
Igor Mendonça ProençaDepartment of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit, University of São Paulo School of Medicine, São Paulo 05403-010, Brazil.
Diogo Turiani Hourneaux de MouraDepartment of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit, University of São Paulo School of Medicine, São Paulo 05403-010, Brazil.
Mauricio Kazuyoshi MinataDepartment of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit, University of São Paulo School of Medicine, São Paulo 05403-010, Brazil.
Edson IdeDepartment of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit, University of São Paulo School of Medicine, São Paulo 05403-010, Brazil.
Marcos Eduardo Lera Dos SantosDepartment of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit, University of São Paulo School of Medicine, São Paulo 05403-010, Brazil.
Gustavo de Oliveira LuzDepartment of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit, University of São Paulo School of Medicine, São Paulo 05403-010, Brazil.
Sergio Eiji MatugumaDepartment of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit, University of São Paulo School of Medicine, São Paulo 05403-010, Brazil.
Spencer ChengDepartment of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit, University of São Paulo School of Medicine, São Paulo 05403-010, Brazil.
Renato BaracatDepartment of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit, University of São Paulo School of Medicine, São Paulo 05403-010, Brazil.
Eduardo Guimarães Hourneaux de MouraDepartment of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit, University of São Paulo School of Medicine, São Paulo 05403-010, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Acute post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) is a feared and potentially fatal complication that can be as high as up to 30% in high-risk patients. Pre-examination measures, during the examination and after the examination are the key to technical and clinical success with a decrease in adverse events. Several studies have debated on the subject, however, numerous topics remain controversial, such as the effectiveness of prophylactic medications and the amylase dosage time. This review was designed to provide an update on the current scientific evidence regarding PEP available in the literature.

Indexed as

Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic RetrogradePancreatitisAmylasesHumansRisk FactorsAmylasesAdverse eventsEndoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographyPancreatitisPost-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitisPrevention

Identifiers

PMID34092971
PMCPMC8160616

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.