ArticleScientific reports2025
A network meta-analysis of optimal strategies for preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Rectal Diclofenac Versus Indomethacin in Preventing Post-ERCP Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2026Pooled it
- Rectal Indomethacin in Preventing Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis: An Updated Meta-Analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis.Digestive diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Pooled it
- Impact of music intervention on endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography patients' pain, anxiety, and vital signs: a randomized controlled trial.Scientific reports · 2026Trial
- Transforming endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: the role of artificial intelligence in pre-operative planning, intraoperative navigation, and post-operative risk prediction.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Prediction model for the occurrence of acute pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography based on multidimensional indicators.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- Prevention, Detection, and Management of Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis.Gut and liver · 2025Review
- More Than Just a Complication: Post-ERCP Pancreatitis and Its Clinical Determinants in over 800 Procedures.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Prophylactic Biliary Stenting After Stone Clearance Improves the Safety of Needle-Knife Fistulotomy: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Numerous interventions have been proposed to reduce the risk of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP), but it remains uncertain which approach is the most effective. The objective of this network meta-analysis was to evaluate and compare different preventive strategies for overall, mild, and moderate-to-severe PEP in both average- and high-risk patients. A systematic search was conducted for randomized controlled trials across the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central databases. The inclusion criteria encompassed studies that featured at least two of the following interventions: pre-procedural administration of 100 mg of rectal diclofenac (D) or indomethacin (I), aggressive hydration utilizing normal saline (NS) or lactated Ringer's solution (LR), 5-french pancreatic duct stent (S), and either a placebo or an active control (C). The interventions were ranked according to their surface under cumulative ranking (SUCRA) values. The study protocol has been registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024538533). Of the total 42 (n = 11,493) identified studies, 23 studies (n = 5,410) were categorized into the average-risk group and 19 studies (n = 6,083) were categorized into high-risk group. Based on SUCRA, I + NS was ranked as the best preventive method for overall and mild PEP in average-risk group. However, I + LR was the most effective method of prevention of moderate-to-severe PEP in this group. In high-risk group, I + S was the best preventive method of overall and mild PEP. However, D was the most effective method of prevention of moderate-to-severe PEP in this group. The findings of this network meta-analysis indicate that endoscopists should consider all available prophylactic options when performing ERCP, rather than favoring one over the others.
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.