ArticleAnnals of gastroenterology
Increased capture of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography adverse events by delayed (day 7) follow-up calls: a prospective comparison of physician- and nurse-initiated calls.
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 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.
- Preventing Post-ERCP Pancreatitis: A Pragmatic Clinical Pathway from Periprocedural Prophylaxis to Early Postprocedural Triage.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- RE: Increased capture of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography adverse events by delayed (day 7) follow-up calls: a prospective comparison of physician- and nurse-initiated calls.Annals of gastroenterologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a high-risk endoscopic procedure. We recently found that physician-initiated post-ERCP follow-up calls on day 7 post-ERCP increased adverse event capture. Subsequently, we prospectively evaluated the utility of nurse-initiated follow-up calls, comparing these with physician-initiated calls to assess the impact of transitioning this responsibility to a nurse. Methods: This prospective study was conducted on consecutive patients undergoing ERCP at our academic tertiary care medical center. Patients received phone calls on days 1 and 7 post-ERCP, from either an endoscopist or a nurse coordinator, using a standardized script to assess delayed complications (pancreatitis, non-pancreatitis abdominal pain, bleeding, infection, perforation), and unplanned health encounters. Results: A total of 448 ERCP patients (239 physician calls, 209 nursing calls) were included. Physician calls were more successful than nursing calls in reaching patients on both day 1 (96% vs. 74%, P<0.001) and day 7 (91% vs. 63%, P<0.001). Nursing calls were significantly longer than physician calls on both days. A higher adverse event capture rate by physician calls compared to nursing calls was evident on day 1 (3.5% vs. 2.4%, P=0.04) and day 7 (10.6% vs. 6.3%, P=0.004). Physician follow-up calls on day 7 resulted in substantially more patients triaged to the Emergency Department, primary care and oncology clinics (P<0.001). Conclusions: Physician calls were significantly more effective than nurse calls in reaching patients, capturing adverse events, and triaging patients to appropriate care. These data support the value of physician-initiated calls, at least following the most complex procedures.
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.