ArticleAnnals of medicine2025
Early intervention with rescue ERCP and pancreatic stenting for unanticipated post-ERCP pancreatitis: a comparative study.
Article in Annals of medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Letter regarding 'early intervention with rescue ERCP and pancreatic stenting for unanticipated post-ERCP pancreatitis: a comparative study'.Annals of medicine · 2026Article
- Response to letter regarding 'Early intervention with rescue ERCP and pancreatic stenting for unanticipated post-ERCP pancreatitis: a comparative study'.Annals of medicine · 2026Article
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
objectivesPrevious studies have demonstrated that rescue endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) effectively relieves post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). This study aimed to compare the therapeutic efficacy of rescue ERCP combined with conservative treatment with that of conservative treatment alone in patients with PEP. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this retrospective comparative study, patients presenting with abdominal pain, significantly elevated amylase levels, and relevant imaging findings were eligible for rescue ERCP. The pain score, duration of elevated amylase levels, duration of systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), time to resume oral diet, and hospital stay were compared.
resultsThirteen patients who underwent rescue ERCP and 29 who received conservative therapy were classified into the stent and conservative groups, respectively. The median pain scores 48 h after PEP onset were significantly lower in the stent group than in the conservative treatment group (4.00 vs. 5.00,
conclusionsEarly intervention with pancreatic stenting combined with conservative treatment more effectively relieves PEP compared with conservative treatment alone. The optimal therapeutic window is approximately 7 h after PEP onset.
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.