ReviewF1000Research2023
ERCP-induced perforation: review and revisit after half a century.
Review in F1000Research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is an invasive procedure. We aimed to investigate ERCP-induced perforations at our institution and conduct a comprehensive review of literature on ERCP-induced perforations (EIP) since the introduction of this procedure as a therapeutic intervention. Methods: This was a case-control study, in which charts of all patients diagnosed with ERCP-induced duodenal perforation were reviewed and compared to a control group without perforation. Patient's sociodemographic and clinical data, including ERCP procedure-related data, were gathered. Results: A total of 996 ERCP procedures were performed; only 13 patients proved to have EIP. Obstructive jaundice was the most common indication for ERCP. The main predisposing factor was difficult cannulation (P = 0.003). In total, five patients required surgical treatment; the majority of them had type I perforation, whereas type IV was the most common in patients who were treated conservatively. The overall mortality rate was 15%, the surgical group had a slightly higher mortality rate. Conclusions: Fifty years after the introduction of ERCP for therapy, it remains an invasive procedure that carries significant morbidity and mortality, even in skilled hands or at high- volume units. Conservative management of perforation yields favorable outcomes in selected patients.
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.