Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36438881›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy2022

Antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent complications in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Maria Fernanda Shinin Merchan, Diogo Turiani Hourneaux de Moura, Guilherme Henrique Peixoto de Oliveira, Igor Mendonça Proença, Epifanio Silvino do Monte Junior, Edson Ide, Caroline Moll, Sergio A Sánchez-Luna, Wanderley Marques Bernardo, Eduardo Guimarães Hourneaux de Moura

Open access · diamondAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Maria Fernanda Shinin MerchanDepartment of Gastroenterology, Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo 05403-010, Brazil.
Diogo Turiani Hourneaux de MouraDepartment of Gastroenterology, Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo 05403-010, Brazil.
Guilherme Henrique Peixoto de OliveiraDepartment of Gastroenterology, Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo 05403-010, Brazil. guilherme.hpoliveira@hc.fm.usp.br.
Igor Mendonça ProençaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo 05403-010, Brazil.
Epifanio Silvino do Monte JuniorDepartment of Gastroenterology, Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo 05403-010, Brazil.
Edson IdeDepartment of Gastroenterology, Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo 05403-010, Brazil.
Caroline MollDepartment of Gastroenterology, Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo 05403-010, Brazil.
Sergio A Sánchez-LunaDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham Heersink School of Medicine, Birmingham, AL 35233, United States.
Wanderley Marques BernardoDepartment of Gastroenterology, Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo 05403-010, Brazil.
Eduardo Guimarães Hourneaux de MouraDepartment of Gastroenterology, Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo 05403-010, Brazil.
Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo · BRUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe prophylactic use of antibiotics in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is still controversial.

aimTo assess whether antibiotic prophylaxis reduces the rates of complications in patients undergoing elective ERCP.

methodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis were performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines. A comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases was performed. Only randomized controlled trials were included. The outcomes analyzed included bacteremia, cholangitis, sepsis, pancreatitis, and mortality. The risk of bias was assessed by the Cochrane revised Risk-of-Bias tool for randomized controlled trials. The quality of evidence was assessed by the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Meta-analysis was performed using the Review Manager 5.4 software.

resultsTen randomized controlled trials with a total of 1757 patients that compared the use of antibiotic and non-antibiotic prophylaxis in patients undergoing elective ERCP were included. There was no significant difference between groups regarding incidence of cholangitis after ERCP [risk difference (RD) = -0.02, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.05, 0.02,

conclusionThe prophylactic use of antibiotics in patients undergoing elective ERCP reduces the risk of bacteremia but does not appear to have an impact on the rates of cholangitis, septicemia, pancreatitis, and mortality.

Indexed as

AntibioticsCholangitisEndoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographyEndoscopyInfection

Identifiers

PMID36438881
PMCPMC9693690
OpenAlexW4309044049

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.