ArticleAnnals of gastroenterology
Early versus late drainage of pancreatic necrotic fluid collections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Annals of gastroenterology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparison of early and late drainage interventions in necrotizing pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Pooled it
- Revisiting the timing of intervention in necrotising pancreatitis.Intensive care medicine · 2025Article
- Interventional Management of Acute Pancreatitis and Its Complications.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- The evolving role of endoscopic ultrasound-guided lumen-apposing metal stents in the management of peri-pancreatic fluid collections.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Necrotizing pancreatitis can be complicated by necrotic fluid collections (NFCs). International guidelines recommend waiting 4 weeks for the collection to mature before interventional management. With the advances in endoscopic drainage, the need to delay drainage by 4 weeks is unclear. We aimed to compare early drainage (ED: <4 weeks) vs. late drainage (LD: ≥4 weeks) of NFCs. Methods: Literature searches through multiple databases were performed to identify studies that investigated outcomes of ED vs. LD of NFCs. Our primary outcome was the complication rate among these groups. The secondary outcomes included the number of patients requiring subsequent necrosectomies, and mortality. Results: We identified 9 studies with 855 patients (320 ED and 535 LD). The complication rates (rate ratio 1.060, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79-1.42; P=0.69; Conclusions: Our study suggests that ED can be performed if needed in carefully selected patients without an increase in complications or subsequent necrosectomies. However, mortality was slightly higher compared to LD. A multidisciplinary team approach is necessary for considering ED.
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.