ReviewJGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology2021
Rectal indomethacin and diclofenac are equally efficient in preventing pancreatitis following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in average-risk patients.
Review 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 7 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rectal Diclofenac Versus Indomethacin in Preventing Post-ERCP Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2026Pooled it
- Efficacy of indomethacin for the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: A comprehensive meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.World journal of gastroenterology · 2026Pooled it
- Rectal Indomethacin in Preventing Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis: An Updated Meta-Analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis.Digestive diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Pooled it
- Review
- Cracking the code of post-ERCP pancreatitis: predictors, prevention, and proven strategies from 3323 surgeon-led procedures.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Management of primary sclerosing cholangitis: Current state-of-the-art.Hepatology communications · 2024Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rectal indomethacin and diclofenac are promising drugs for prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP). However, their prophylactic effect on PEP in average-risk patients remains controversial. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of rectal indomethacin and diclofenac in average-risk patients, and to indirectly compare the prophylactic effect of the two drugs. A comprehensive search of the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on rectal indomethacin or diclofenac for prophylaxis against PEP. Fixed- and random-effects models weighted by the Mantel-Haenszel method were used for direct comparisons. The adjusted indirect treatment comparison method was used to indirectly compare the efficacy of indomethacin and diclofenac. A total of 10 RCTs, including 2928 patients, met our inclusion criteria. No significant publication bias was identified. Pooled estimates showed that rectal indomethacin and diclofenac were associated with a significant reduction in the overall risk of PEP compared with control intervention [relative risk (RR) = 0.62; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.46-0.83] in average-risk patients. Subgroup analyses showed that both rectal indomethacin (RR = 0.67; 95% CI: 0.49-0.94) and diclofenac (RR = 0.42; 95% CI: 0.23-0.75) were effective in the prevention of PEP. Indirect comparison showed no significant difference between the effectiveness of the two drugs in the prevention of PEP (RR = 1.607; 95% CI: 0.824-3.136). The updated meta-analysis suggests that both drugs provide equivalent protection against PEP in average-risk patients.
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.