Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36295081›Full record

ReviewLife (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Comparison between Enteroscopy-, Laparoscopy- and Endoscopic Ultrasound-Assisted Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangio-Pancreatography in Patients with Surgically Altered Anatomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Paraskevas Gkolfakis, Apostolis Papaefthymiou, Antonio Facciorusso, Georgios Tziatzios, Daryl Ramai, Spyridon Dritsas, Theodosia Florou, Ioannis S Papanikolaou, Cesare Hassan, Alessandro Repici and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. ERCP in a patient with Billroth II gastrectomy: a rare case report.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. [Cholecystolithiasis and intestinal bypass procedures].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2023
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

15 authors at 10 institutions in 7 countries.

Paraskevas GkolfakisDepartment of Gastroenterology, Hepatopancreatology, and Digestive Oncology, CUB Erasme Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), 1070 Brussels, Belgium.
Apostolis PapaefthymiouPancreaticobiliary Unit, University College London Hospitals, London NW1 2BU, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3563-4973
Antonio FacciorussoGastroenterology Unit, Department of Surgical and Medical Sciences, University of Foggia, 71122 Foggia, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-2107-2156
Georgios TziatziosHepatogastroenterology Unit, Second Department of Internal Medicine-Propaedeutic, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, "Attikon" University General Hospital, 124 62 Chaidari, Greece.ORCID 0000-0002-2945-6007
Daryl RamaiGastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, UT 84132, USA.
Spyridon DritsasDepartment of General Surgery, Yeovil District Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Higher Kingston, Yeovil BA21 4AT, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0435-5306
Theodosia FlorouDepartment of Gastroenterology, University Hospital of Larissa, 411 10 Larissa, Greece.
Ioannis S PapanikolaouHepatogastroenterology Unit, Second Department of Internal Medicine-Propaedeutic, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, "Attikon" University General Hospital, 124 62 Chaidari, Greece.ORCID 0000-0002-7368-6168
Cesare HassanEndoscopic Unit, Department of Gastroenterology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, 20089 Milan, Italy.
Alessandro RepiciEndoscopic Unit, Department of Gastroenterology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, 20089 Milan, Italy.
Konstantinos TriantafyllouHepatogastroenterology Unit, Second Department of Internal Medicine-Propaedeutic, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, "Attikon" University General Hospital, 124 62 Chaidari, Greece.ORCID 0000-0002-5183-9426
Lars AabakkenGI Endoscopy Unit, Institute of Clinical Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, 0372 Oslo, Norway.
Jacques DevièreDepartment of Gastroenterology, Hepatopancreatology, and Digestive Oncology, CUB Erasme Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), 1070 Brussels, Belgium.
Torsten BeynaDepartment of Internal Medicine, Evagelisches Krankenhaus Düsseldorf, 40225 Düsseldorf, Germany.
Marianna ArvanitakisDepartment of Gastroenterology, Hepatopancreatology, and Digestive Oncology, CUB Erasme Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), 1070 Brussels, Belgium.
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens · GRUniversité Libre de Bruxelles · BEIRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital · ITEvangelisches Krankenhaus Düsseldorf · DEOslo University Hospital · NORoyal London Hospital · GBUniversity Hospital of Larissa · GRUniversity of Foggia · ITUniversity of Utah · USYeovil District Hospital NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsEndoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), in surgically altered anatomy (SAA), can be challenging and the optimal technique selection remains debatable. Most common foregut interventions resulting to this burden consist of Billroth II gastrectomy, Whipple surgery and Roux-en-Y anastomoses, including gastric by-pass. This systematic review, with meta-analysis, aimed to compare the rates of successful enteroscope-assisted (EA)-, endosonography-directed transgastric- (EDGE), and laparoscopy-assisted (LA)-ERCP.

methodsA systematic research (Medline) was performed for relative studies, through January 2022. The primary outcome was technical success, defined as approaching the ampulla site. Secondary outcomes included the desired duct cannulation, successful therapeutic manipulations, and complication rates. We performed meta-analyses of pooled data, and subgroup analysis considering the EA-ERCP subtypes (spiral-, double and single balloon-enteroscope). Pooled rates are reported as percentages with 95% Confidence Intervals (95%CIs).

resultsSeventy-six studies were included (3569 procedures). Regarding primary outcome, EA-ERCP was the least effective [87.3% (95%CI: 85.3-89.4); I

conclusionsLA-ERCP and EDGE were associated with higher technical, cannulation, and therapeutic success compared to EA-ERCP, though accompanied with more adverse events.

Indexed as

balloon enteroscopyBillrothEDGEenteroscopyERCPlaparoscopyRoux-n-YRYGB

Identifiers

PMID36295081
PMCPMC9605390
OpenAlexW4306952283

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.