Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36707836›Full record

SynthesisWorld journal of emergency surgery : WJES2023

The optimal timing and intervention to reduce mortality for necrotizing pancreatitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Yang Yang, Yu Zhang, Shuaiyong Wen, Yunfeng Cui

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

Synthesis in World journal of emergency surgery : WJES, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
7.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Diagnostic and therapeutic management of severe acute pancreatitis. Evidence based medicine (EBM) clinical practice guidelines.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2025
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Genetic Variability in theInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Yang YangDepartment of Surgery, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, 300070, China.
Yu ZhangDepartment of Surgery, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, 300070, China.
Shuaiyong WenDepartment of Surgery, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, 300070, China.
Yunfeng CuiDepartment of Surgery, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, 300070, China. nkyycyf@163.com.
Tianjin Medical University · CNTianjin Nankai Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA series of randomized controlled trials have investigated the efficacy and safety of different timings of interventions and methods of intervention. However, the optimal treatment strategy is not yet clear.

methodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Cochrane Library until November 30, 2022. A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis were performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Trials comparing different treatment strategies for necrotizing pancreatitis were included. This study was registered in the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42022364409) to ensure transparency.

resultsWe analyzed a total of 10 studies involving 570 patients and 8 treatment strategies. Although no statistically significant differences were identified comparing odds ratios, trends were confirmed by the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) scores. The interventions with a low rate of mortality were delayed surgery (DS), delayed surgical step-up approach (DSU) and delayed endoscopic step-up approach (DEU), while the interventions with a low rate of major complications were DSU, DEU and DS. According to the clustered ranking plot, DSU performed the best overall in reducing mortality and major complications, while DD performed the worst. Analysis of the secondary endpoints confirmed the superiority of DEU and DSU in terms of individual components of major complications (organ failure, pancreatic fistula, bleeding, and visceral organ or enterocutaneous fistula), exocrine insufficiency, endocrine insufficiency and length of stay. Overall, DSU was superior to other interventions.

conclusionDSU was the optimal treatment strategy for necrotizing pancreatitis. Drainage alone should be avoided in clinical practice. Any interventions should be postponed for at least 4 weeks if possible. The step-up approach was preferred.

Indexed as

Pancreatitis, Acute NecrotizingBayes TheoremDrainageHumansInterventionMortalityNecrotizing pancreatitisNetwork meta-analysisRandomized controlled trials

Identifiers

PMID36707836
PMCPMC9883927
OpenAlexW4318318747

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.