ReviewGut and liver2024
Quality Indicators of Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in Korea.
Review in Gut and liver, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Safety and Efficacy of Primary Needle-Knife Fistulotomy in Patients at High Risk for Post-ERCP Pancreatitis: A Prospective Multicenter Pilot Study Comparing Endoscopists with Different Levels of ERCP and NKF Experience.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2026Article
- Biliary Stent Placement by Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: Quality Indicators and Technical Applications.Gut and liver · 2026Review
- Preventing Post-ERCP Pancreatitis: A Pragmatic Clinical Pathway from Periprocedural Prophylaxis to Early Postprocedural Triage.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Feasibility of primary precut sphincterotomy in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for patients with large oral protrusions of the duodenal papilla; prospective observation study in Japan.Clinical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Evolving Strategies for the Optimal Management of Common Bile Duct Stones.Gut and liver · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a procedure that requires significant experiences and skills and has various procedure-related complications, some of which can be severe and even result in the death of patients. Expanding ERCP availability has the advantage of increasing accessibility for patients. However, ERCP poses a substantial risk if performed without proper quality management. ERCP quality management is essential for both ensuring safe and successful procedures and meeting the social demands for enhanced healthcare competitiveness and quality assurance. To address these concerns, the Korean Pancreatobiliary Association established a task force to develop ERCP quality indicators (QIs) tailored to the Korean medical environment. Key questions for five pre-procedure, three intra-procedure, and four post-procedure measures were formulated based on a literature search related to ERCP QIs and a comprehensive clinical review conducted by experts. The statements and recommendations regarding each QI item were selected through peer review. The developed ERCP QIs were reviewed by external experts based on the latest available evidence at the time of development. These domestically tailored ERCP QIs are expected to contribute considerably to improving ERCP quality in Korea.
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.