Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36510779›Full record

SynthesisGut and liver2023

Combinatorial Effect of Prophylactic Interventions for Post-ERCP Pancreatitis among Patients with Risk Factors: A Network Meta-Analysis.

Jin Ho Choi, Sang Hyub Lee, Joo Seong Kim, Namyoung Park, Myoeng Hwan Lee, Min Woo Lee, In Rae Cho, Woo Hyun Paik, Ji Kon Ryu, Yong-Tae Kim

Open access · diamondAbstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Gut and liver, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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 1 institution in 1 country.

Jin Ho ChoiDepartment of Internal Medicine and Liver Research Institute, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-2758-1370
Sang Hyub LeeDepartment of Internal Medicine and Liver Research Institute, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-2174-9726
Joo Seong KimDepartment of Internal Medicine and Liver Research Institute, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-0411-9805
Namyoung ParkDepartment of Internal Medicine and Liver Research Institute, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-3947-4532
Myoeng Hwan LeeDepartment of Internal Medicine and Liver Research Institute, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-9743-8479
Min Woo LeeDepartment of Internal Medicine and Liver Research Institute, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-3011-1425
In Rae ChoDepartment of Internal Medicine and Liver Research Institute, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-9874-5526
Woo Hyun PaikDepartment of Internal Medicine and Liver Research Institute, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-8708-3280
Ji Kon RyuDepartment of Internal Medicine and Liver Research Institute, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-8798-0491
Yong-Tae KimDepartment of Internal Medicine and Liver Research Institute, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-7843-9705
Seoul National University · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background/Aims: The combinatorial effects of prophylactic methods for postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) in patients with risk factors remain unclear. In this network meta-analysis, we compared the efficacy of various prophylactic strategies to decrease the risk of PEP among patients with risk factors. Methods: A systematic review was performed to identify randomized controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library through July 2021. We used frequentist network meta-analysis to compare the rates of PEP among patients who received prophylactic treatments as follows: class A, rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; class B, prophylactic pancreatic stent; class C, aggressive hydration; or control, no prophylaxis or active control. We selected those studies that included patients with risk factors for PEP. Results: We identified 19 trials, comprising 4,328 participants. Class ABC (odds ratio [OR], 0.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.03 to 0.24), class AC (OR, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.47), class AB (OR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.26), class BC (OR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.41), class A (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.50), and class B (OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.46), were associated with a reduced risk of PEP as compared to that of the control. The most effective prophylaxis was ABC (0.87), followed by AC (0.68), AB (0.65), BC (0.56), A (0.49), and B (0.24) according to P-score. Conclusions: The results of this network meta-analysis suggest that the more prophylactic methods are employed, the better the outcomes. It appears that for patients with risk factors, we need to prevent PEP through the use of these well proven combination strategies.

Indexed as

Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic RetrogradePancreatitisAnti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-SteroidalHumansPancreasRisk FactorsAnti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-SteroidalEndoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographyNonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agentPancreatitisProphylaxisStent

Identifiers

PMID36510779
PMCPMC10502499
OpenAlexW4311283830

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.