ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2026
Early Abdominal Paracentesis for Ascites in Acute Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Necrotic pancreatitis: modern approaches to the prevention of infected necrosis.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAscites in acute pancreatitis (AP) is a poor prognostic marker and contributes to systemic inflammation, rise in intraabdominal pressure, and poor outcomes. It is not known whether early paracentesis is of any benefit hence we decided to undertake a meta-analysis. METHODOLOGY: Comprehensive review of three major databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and Scopus) was done using a prespecified search strategy. References were sorted in Rayyan. Data on primary outcome of mortality were extracted from studies comparing early paracentesis to no intervention. Pooled relative risk (RR) was calculated using random-effects meta-analysis with inverse variance weightage. Risk of bias was assessed using Newcastle-Ottawa scale for non-randomized studies and Rob2 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Publication bias was assessed using funnel plot. (PROSPERO CRD420251034110).
resultsOf the 227 citations obtained from the three databases, 11 studies with 1535 participants were shortlisted based on prespecified inclusion criteria. Only 3 of the included observational studies had Newcastle-Ottawa score of < 7, while the two RCTs had some concerns of bias. The RR of mortality was 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38 to 0.84. Post hoc sensitivity analysis after excluding results of 5 studies from same center yielded RR 0.63 (95% CI 0.32 to 1.22). Further sensitivity analysis of only RCTs yielded pooled RR to be 0.69 (95% CI 0.33 to 1.45).
conclusionEarly paracentesis decreases risk of mortality in AP. However, the data are not robust since sensitivity analysis did not reveal significant point estimates. Adequately powered further studies are warranted to explore utility of paracentesis in AP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40856952What 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.