ArticleGland surgery2021
Effectiveness of digestive endoscopy and surgery in the treatment of necrotizing pancreatitis: a meta-analysis and systematic review.
Article in Gland surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endoscopic step up: When and how.Surgery open science · 2022Article
- Stenting of the pancreatic duct in the early phase of acute pancreatitis: a retrospective study.BMC gastroenterology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDigestive endoscopy and surgery are the primary invasive methods for the clinical treatment of necrotizing pancreatitis. However, there are relatively few studies evaluating the effectiveness and safety of these two methods.
methodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) on endoscopic and surgical treatment of necrotizing pancreatitis published from January 2000 to December 2020 were searched in the PubMed, Medline, Embase, China Biology Medicine Disc (CBM), and WanFang databases. The
resultsTen articles were included in this meta-analysis, involving a total of 401 patients, including 188 in the endoscopy group and 213 in the surgery group. Meta-analysis results revealed that the clinical remission rate (CRR) [odds ratio (OR) =1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.58-2.92, P=0.52], new organ failure rate (OFR) (OR =0.53, 95% CI: 0.26-1.09, P=0.08), abdominal bleeding rate (ABR) (OR =0.62, 95% CI: 0.33-1.15, P=0.13), and intensive care unit (ICU) stay time (IST) [mean deviation (MD) =-7.33, 95% CI: -16.76 to 2.11, P=0.13] were not significantly different between the endoscopy and surgery groups. In the endoscopy group, the mortality rate (OR =0.56, 95% CI: 0.31-1.02, P=0.05), intestinal fistula rate (IFR) or gastrointestinal perforation rate (GPR) (OR =0.50, 95% CI: 0.26-0.99, P=0.05), and pancreatic fistula rate (PFR) (OR =0.09, 95% CI: 0.04-0.23, P<0.00001) were markedly lower compared to the surgery group. DISCUSSION: There was no obvious difference in the clinical efficacy of endoscopic and surgical treatment of necrotizing pancreatitis. However, endoscopy can greatly reduce the incidence of postoperative death and major complications in 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.