ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2024
Risk factors for post‑retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis in patients with common bile duct stones: A meta‑analysis.
Article in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 2024. 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.
- Article
- Preventing Post-ERCP Pancreatitis: A Pragmatic Clinical Pathway from Periprocedural Prophylaxis to Early Postprocedural Triage.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has become a common treatment method for common bile duct stones. However, ERCP is also associated with a high risk of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP). Identification of risk factors is essential for reducing the incidence of PEP. The present study aimed to summarize the risk factors for PEP by performing a meta-analysis. Therefore, studies published between 2000 and 2022 were screened in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Digital Periodicals and the Weipu Database, with no language restrictions. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the quality of the included studies. Stata 17.0 software was utilized for the meta-analysis of 14 possible risk factors. Overall, 15 high-quality studies were included into the present meta-analysis. The results showed that female [odds ratio (OR), 1.42; 95% CI, 1.23-1.64), age <60 years (OR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.06-2.21), difficult intubation (OR, 4.87; 95% CI, 2.73-8.68), ≥3 cannulation attempts (OR, 9.64; 95% CI, 4.16-22.35), cannulation time ≥10 min (OR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.67-3.35), history of pancreatitis (OR, 2.95; 95% CI, 1.06-5.51), pancreatic duct visualization (OR, 3.63; 95% CI, 2.47-5.34) and sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (OR, 5.72; 95% CI, 1.80-18.24) are potential risk factors for PEP (P<0.05). In conclusion, the present meta-analysis suggests that PEP can be affected by several risk factors, particularly the technique-related factors such as the frequency and time of cannulation. Therefore, effective precautions should be taken as early as possible to reduce the incidence of PEP.
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.