Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35887696›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2022

Percutaneous Endoscopic Necrosectomy-A Review of the Literature.

Mateusz Jagielski, Agata Chwarścianek, Jacek Piątkowski, Marek Jackowski

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. 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
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mateusz JagielskiDepartment of General, Gastroenterological and Oncological Surgery Collegium Medicum, Nicolaus Copernicus University, 87-100 Torun, Poland.
Agata ChwarścianekDepartment of General, Gastroenterological and Oncological Surgery Collegium Medicum, Nicolaus Copernicus University, 87-100 Torun, Poland.
Jacek PiątkowskiDepartment of General, Gastroenterological and Oncological Surgery Collegium Medicum, Nicolaus Copernicus University, 87-100 Torun, Poland.
Marek JackowskiDepartment of General, Gastroenterological and Oncological Surgery Collegium Medicum, Nicolaus Copernicus University, 87-100 Torun, Poland.
Nicolaus Copernicus University · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this article, an attempt was made to clarify the role of percutaneous endoscopic necrosectomy (PEN) in the interventional treatment of pancreatic necrosis. A comprehensive review of the current literature was performed to identify publications on the role of PEN in patients with consequences of acute necrotizng pancreatitis. The aim of the study was to review the literature on minimal invasive necrosectomy, with emphasis on PEN using esophageal self-expanding metal stents (SEMS). The described results come from 15 studies after a review of the current literature. The study group comprised 52 patients (36 men and 16 women; mean age, 50.87 (13-75) years) with walled-off pancreatic necrosis, in whom PEN using a self-expandable esophageal stent had been performed. PEN was successfully completed in all 52 patients (100%). PEN complications were observed in 18/52 (34.62%) patients. Clinical success was achieved in 42/52 (80.77%) patients, with follow-up continuing for an average of 136 (14-557) days. In conclusion, the PEN technique is potentially effective, with an acceptable rate of complications and may be implemented with good clinical results in patients with pancreatic necrosis.

Indexed as

necrosispreferredretroperitoneal accesstransmural access

Identifiers

PMID35887696
PMCPMC9324430
OpenAlexW4283823242

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.