Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35919210›Full record

ArticleCureus2022

Immediate Catheter Drainage Versus Delayed Drainage in the Management of Infected Necrotizing Pancreatitis.

Wahidullah Dost, Farzad Qasemi, Wahida Ali, Tahmina Aini, Mohammad Qaher Rasully, Jamaluddin Niazi, Rana Sarhadi Jamal, Maseha Sayer, Laila Tul Qadar, Sultan Masoud Shah Afzali

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Turkish Society of Gastroenterology: Pancreas Working Group, Acute Pancreatitis Committee Consensus Report.The Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology · 2024
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Management of infected acute necrotizing pancreatitis.World journal of clinical cases · 2023
    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

10 authors.

Wahidullah DostGeneral Surgery, Liaquatian Academic & Research Society, Hyderabad, PAK.
Farzad QasemiGeneral Surgery, Liaquatian Academic & Research Society, Hyderabad, PAK.
Wahida AliGeneral Surgery, Liaquatian Academic & Research Society, Hyderabad, PAK.
Tahmina AiniGeneral Surgery, Liaquatian Academic & Research Society, Hyderabad, PAK.
Mohammad Qaher RasullyGeneral Surgery, Liaquatian Academic & Research Society, Hyderabad, PAK.
Jamaluddin NiaziCardiovascular Surgery, Punjab Institute of Cardiology, Lahore, PAK.
Rana Sarhadi JamalGeneral Surgery, Liaquatian Academic & Research Society, Hyderabad, PAK.
Maseha SayerGeneral Surgery, Liaquatian Academic & Research Society, Hyderabad, PAK.
Laila Tul QadarInternal Medicine, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, PAK.
Sultan Masoud Shah AfzaliGeneral Surgery, Liaquatian Academic & Research Society, Hyderabad, PAK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImmediate or delayed catheter drainage of infected pancreatic necrosis remains a subject of debate. The present study aimed to evaluate the optimum timing for drainage in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis.  Methods: A prospective, observational study was undertaken at the Department of Surgery, Liaquat University of Medical & Health Sciences (LUMHS), between 1st March 2018 and 6th July 2020. All patients 18 years or older presenting with acute pancreatitis (AP) in whom necrotizing pancreatitis was confirmed or suspected were enrolled in the study. The exclusion criteria included prior intervention for necrotizing pancreatitis. Those who were diagnosed with infected necrotizing pancreatitis were labeled as Group A and Group B. Group A patients underwent immediate catheter drainage (within 24 h of admission) while Group B patients underwent delayed drainage (after 24 h). Clinical outcome variables including complication rate, mortality, length of hospital, and intensive care unit (ICU) stay were collected in a predefined pro forma.

resultsOne hundred and thirty patients were enrolled in the study. There were 65 patients in each group. The present study revealed no significant differences in patient outcomes in the immediate drainage group vs. the postponed drainage group. Overall, the mortality rate was 15.38% in Group A while the mortality rate was a little lower in Group B, i.e. 10.77% (p=0.44). The acute onset multiple organ failure was lower in Group A as compared to Group B, however, the difference was statistically insignificant (p=0.08). The rate of wound infection rate was 10.77% and 15.38% in Group A and Group B, respectively (p=0.61).

conclusionIn the present study, we failed to find any significant difference between the immediate and postponed drainage group in terms of patient outcome. As per current findings, the timing of drainage did not impact the prognosis of patients with necrotizing pancreatitis.

Indexed as

acute pancreatitisdelayeddrainageimmediate drainagenecrotizing pancreatitis

Identifiers

PMID35919210
PMCPMC9339159

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.