ArticleIDCases2025
Article in IDCases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) is a recognized complication, often attributed to mechanical trauma, chemical injury, or bacterial contamination by enteric pathogens such as Escherichia coli, Enterococcus, and Klebsiella. However, Staphylococcus aureus has not been previously reported as a causative agent of PEP. Case presentation: We present a case series of two young female patients who developed severe necrotizing PEP associated with S. aureus following ERCP. Both cases were characterized by prolonged hospitalizations, multiple interventions, and a complicated clinical course. The first patient, a 26-year-old female, developed methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) PEP, requiring serial percutaneous drainage and pancreatic necrosectomy. She was treated with intravenous daptomycin followed by long-term oral doxycycline. The second patient, a 22-year-old female, developed methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) PEP complicated by persistent peripancreatic abscesses, necessitating multiple necrosectomy procedures and extended antibiotic therapy with cefazolin, dalbavancin, and cephalexin. Conclusion: This case series represents the first documented instances of S. aureus associated PEP. These cases highlight the potential for S. aureus as a post-ERCP pathogen and underscore the importance of considering non-enteric bacteria in PEP patients with an unexplained infectious course. Management requires a multidisciplinary approach, with emphasis on source control and selection of antibiotics with adequate pancreatic penetration. Further research is needed to better characterize the pathophysiology and optimal treatment of S. aureus-associated 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.