ArticleJGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology2021
New practical scoring system to predict post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: Development and validation.
Article in JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Risk prediction model for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2025Pooled it
- A Risk Prediction Model for Post-endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis After Stent Insertion for Malignant Biliary Obstruction: Development and Validation.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2023Trial
- Article
- Development and validation of a novel risk score for predicting post-ERCP pancreatitis in patients with choledocholithiasis: a retrospective study.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Radiomics analysis based on MRCP for predicting post-ERCP pancreatitis in patients with common bile duct stones.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Article
- Development and validation of a practical prediction model for post-ERCP pancreatitis using machine learning.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Synergistic effect of independent risk factors for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: a multicenter retrospective study in Japan.Clinical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Computed tomography-based prediction of pancreatitis following biliary metal stent placement with the convolutional neural network.Endoscopy international open · 2024Article
- Predictors of Post-ERCP Pancreatitis (P.E.P.) in Choledochal Lithiasis Extraction.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: current strategies and novel perspectives.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2023Review
- Current approaches and questions yet to be resolved for the prophylaxis of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimPost-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) is the most serious adverse event of ERCP. Therefore, it is important to identify high-risk patients who require prophylactic measures. The aim of this study was to develop a practical prediction model for PEP that identifies high-risk patients.
methodsPatients who underwent ERCP at three tertiary hospitals between April 2010 and September 2012 were enrolled. The dataset was divided into a training set (two centers) and validation set (one center). Using the training set, univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to identify predictive factors for PEP. We constructed a scoring system and evaluated reproducibility using the validation set.
resultsA total of 2719 ERCPs were analyzed. PEP developed in 133 cases (4.9%). Risk factors (adjusted odds ratios [OR]) in the training set were a history of PEP (OR: 4.2), intact papilla (OR: 2.4), difficult cannulation (OR: 1.9), pancreatic guidewire-assisted biliary cannulation (OR: 2.2), pancreatic injection (OR: 2.1), pancreatic intraductal ultrasonography (IDUS)/sampling from the pancreatic duct (OR: 2.2), and biliary IDUS/sampling from the biliary tract (OR: 2.8). A scoring system was constructed using these seven clinical variables. The areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curve of this model were 0.799 in the training set and 0.791 in the validation set. In the high-risk group at a score of 3 or higher, the incidence of PEP was 13.4%, and all severe/fatal cases were in the high-risk group.
conclusionsThis scoring system helps to predict each patient's risk and select preventive measures.
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.