ArticleCureus2022
Predicting the Success of Catheter Drainage in Infected Necrotising Pancreatitis: A Cross-Sectional Observational Study.
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Application and Value of Percutaneous Catheter Drainage in Contemporary Surgical Treatment of Pancreatic Necrosis.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2025Review
- Approach to the Diagnosis and Management of Infected Pancreatic Necrosis: A Narrative Review.Cureus · 2025Review
- Percutaneous Biopsy and Drainage of the Pancreas.Seminars in interventional radiology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Management of acute necrotising pancreatitis is often challenging for clinicians. Secondary infection of the necrotic collections leads to sepsis and warrants intervention. Minimally invasive techniques like catheter drainage have recently been proposed over more risky and morbid traditional open procedures. Factors that can predict successful catheter drainage of the necrotic pancreatic collection are still unclear and not well established. Materials and methods This study is designed as a retrospective cross-sectional observational study to investigate the association of 21 factors in predicting successful catheter drainage. Data from 30 patients admitted with acute necrotising pancreatitis treated with catheter drainage were collected and analysed. Twenty-one factors, including demographic variables, disease severity factors, drainage criteria, and morphological criteria on imaging, were studied for their predictive association with successful outcomes. Univariate analysis was done for each variable against the outcome. The study was conducted between December 2012 to March 2017. P-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results Patients with no organ involvement responded better to primary catheter drainage. Patients with BMI>25 and multi-organ failure were poor candidates for primary catheter drainage. Clinically unwell patients with a Bedside Index for Severity in Acute Pancreatitis (BISAP) score of ≥4 had a negative outcome on catheter drainage and usually ended up in a surgical procedure or eventually succumbed to the disease. Other variables included in our study did not statistically associate with the success or failure of percutaneous catheter drainage. Conclusion BMI >25, multiple organ failure, and BISAP score ≥ 4 are independent negative predictors for the success of catheter drainage in infected necrotising pancreatitis. No organ failure showed a positive predictor for successful catheter drainage. Further studies are required to explore these predictive factors in a larger sample size to predict the success of catheter drainage in infected pancreatic necrosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.