Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34993472›Full record

ArticleTherapeutic advances in gastrointestinal endoscopy

Safety of different electrocautery modes for endoscopic sphincterotomy: a Bayesian network meta-analysis.

Abdellah Hedjoudje, Chérifa Cheurfa, Jad Farha, Bénédicte Jaïs, Alain Aubert, Diane Lorenzo, Frédérique Maire, Dilhana Badurdeen, Vivek Kumbhari, Frédéric Prat

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Therapeutic advances in gastrointestinal endoscopy. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

10 authors.

Abdellah HedjoudjeService d'endoscopie digestive, DMU Digestif, Hôpital Beaujon, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, 100 boulevard du Général Leclerc, 92110 Clichy, France. Division of Gastroenterology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6389-828X
Chérifa CheurfaUniversité de Paris, Epidemiology and Statistics, Sorbonne Paris Cité Research Center, (CRESS-UMR1153), INSERM, Cochrane France, Paris, France.
Jad FarhaDivision of Gastroenterology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Bénédicte JaïsService d'endoscopie digestive, DMU Digestif, Hôpital Beaujon, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, Clichy, France.
Alain AubertService d'endoscopie digestive, DMU Digestif, Hôpital Beaujon, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, Clichy, France.
Diane LorenzoService d'endoscopie digestive, DMU Digestif, Hôpital Beaujon, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, Clichy, France.
Frédérique MaireService d'endoscopie digestive, DMU Digestif, Hôpital Beaujon, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, Clichy, France.
Dilhana BadurdeenDivision of Gastroenterology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Vivek KumbhariDivision of Gastroenterology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Frédéric PratService d'endoscopie digestive, DMU Digestif, Hôpital Beaujon, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, Clichy, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsPost-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography acute pancreatitis (PAP) and post-sphincterotomy hemorrhage are known adverse events of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Various electrosurgical currents can be used for endoscopic sphincterotomy. The extent to which this influences adverse events remains unclear. We assessed the comparative safety of different electrosurgical currents, through a Bayesian network meta-analysis of published studies merging direct and indirect comparison of trials.

methodsWe performed a Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that compared the safety of different electrocautery modes for endoscopic sphincterotomy.

resultsNine studies comparing four electrocautery modes (blended cut, pure cut, endocut, and pure cut followed by blended cut) with a combined enrollment of 1615 patients were included. The pooled results of the network meta-analysis did not show a significant difference in preventing post-sphincterotomy pancreatitis when comparing electrocautery modes. However, pure cut was associated with a statistically significant increased risk of bleeding compared with endocut [relative risk = 4.30; 95% confidence interval (1.53-12.87)]. On the other hand, the pooled results of the network meta-analysis showed no significant difference in prevention of bleeding when comparing blended cut

conclusionNo electrocautery mode was superior to another with regard to preventing PAP. Endocut was superior with respect to preventing bleeding. Therefore, we suggest performing endoscopic sphincterotomy with endocut.

Indexed as

electrocauteryelectrocoagulationendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographyendoscopic sphincterotomypancreatitis

Identifiers

PMID34993472
PMCPMC8725216

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.