Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35217579›Full record

ArticleGut2022

Lumen-apposing metal stents for drainage of pancreatic fluid collections: does timing of removal matter?

Manu Nayar, John S Leeds, UK & Ireland LAMS Colloborative, Kofi Oppong

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Gut, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Time to think prime times for treatment of necrotizing pancreatitis: Pendulum conundrum.Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2023
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. 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

4 authors.

Manu NayarHPB Unit, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK & Population Health Sciences Institute, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK manu.nayar@nhs.net.ORCID 0000-0002-1196-3406
John S LeedsHPB Unit, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK & Population Health Sciences Institute, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5140-6225
UK & Ireland LAMS Colloborative
Kofi OppongHPB Unit, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK & Translational and Clinical Research Institute, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7381-7412

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as

DrainagePancreatic PseudocystEndosonographyHumansStentsendoscopic ultrasonographypancreatic disordersstents

Identifiers

PMID35217579
PMCPMC8995808

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.