Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37243522›Full record

SynthesisAnnals of medicine2023

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic drainage versus percutaneous drainage for pancreatic fluid collection; a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Hayat Khizar, Huang Zhicheng, Le Chenyu, Wu Yanhua, Yang Jianfeng

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Annals of medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
8.9field-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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Percutaneous Biopsy and Drainage of the Pancreas.Seminars in interventional radiology · 2024
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Hayat KhizarDepartment of Gastroenterology, International Education College of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0002-9736-1384
Huang ZhichengDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Fourth School of Clinical Medicine of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, China.
Le ChenyuDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Fourth School of Clinical Medicine of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, China.
Wu YanhuaDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Fourth School of Clinical Medicine of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, China.
Yang JianfengDepartment of Gastroenterology, Affiliated Hangzhou First People's Hospital, Zhejiang University School of medicine, Hangzhou, China.
Zhejiang Chinese Medical University · CNIntegrated Chinese Medicine (China) · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

aimsPancreatic fluid collections (PFC) are debris or fluid of the pancreas that needs to be drained out. This may result from surgery or necrotizing pancreatitis. This meta-analysis compared the outcomes of PFC through endoscopic and percutaneous interventions.

methodsA medical database was searched up to June 2022, comparing the outcomes of endoscopic drainage (ED) and percutaneous drainage (PD) for the PFC. Eligible studies reporting clinical and technical success and adverse events were selected.

resultsSeventeen studies with 1170 patients were included for meta-analysis, of which 543 patients underwent ED and 627 underwent PD. The odd ratio (OR) of technical success was 0.81 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31, 2.1) and clinical success was in the favor of the ED group at OR 2.23 (95% CI 1.45, 3.41). Adverse events OR 0.62 (95% CI 0.27, 1.39) and stent migration OR 0.61 (95% CI 0.10, 3.88) were the same in both groups, but hospital stay pooled mean difference of 15.02 days (95% CI 9.86, 20.18), mortality OR 0.24 (95% CI 0.09, 0.67), and re-interventions OR 0.25 (95% CI 0.16, 0.40) favored ED.

conclusionsED is safe and efficient for PFC with higher clinical success, lower mortality rate, hospital stay, and re-interventions compared with PD.

Indexed as

Pancreatic DiseasesDrainageEndoscopyHumansPancreasRetrospective StudiesStentsTreatment Outcomeendoscopic drainageinfected pancreatic necrosisMeta-analysisPancreatic fluid collectionspercutaneous drainagepost-operative pancreatic drainage

Identifiers

PMID37243522
PMCPMC10228307
OpenAlexW4378575265

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.