SynthesisPloS one2025
The influence of somatostatin analogues on the incidence of pancreatic fistulas and postoperative morbidity in patients undergoing pancreatic resection: A Bayesian network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2025. 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.
- Somatostatin and its analogs in the management of postoperative pancreatic fistulas: A comprehensive review.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPancreatic resection is a critical treatment for pancreatic cancer and other pancreatic diseases. Somatostatin analogs are commonly used to prevent complications following pancreatic resection, but their efficacy and safety remain debated.
methodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, a systematic search was conducted across multiple databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Ovid, ClinicalTrials.gov, Web of Science, CNKI, and WanFang Data. The search focused on studies comparing the use of somatostatin analogs after pancreatic surgery. Key outcomes included postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), clinically relevant POPF (CR-POPF), mortality, and morbidity. Statistical analysis was performed using a consistency model, calculating relative risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool was used to assess the quality of evidence.
resultsIn the absence of stratification based on the surgical procedure, For POPF prevention, pasireotide showed a relative risk (RR) of 0.46 (95% CI: 0.23, 0.87, Low) compared to placebo, and octreotide had an RR of 0.76 (95% CI: 0.66, 0.88, Moderate). Somatostatin and vapreotide showed no significant differences. In preventing CR-POPF, pasireotide had an RR of 0.46 (95% CI: 0.23, 0.86, Low), somatostatin had an RR of 0.60 (95% CI: 0.36, 0.99, Moderate), and octreotide had an RR of 0.61 (95% CI: 0.39, 0.94, Moderate). Regarding postoperative mortality, vapreotide showed an RR of 0 (95% CI: 0.00, 0.29, Low), while octreotide, somatostatin and pasireotide did not demonstrate significant effects. For reducing morbidity, octreotide had an RR of 0.74 (95% CI: 0.66, 0.82, Moderate), somatostatin had an RR of 0.76 (95% CI: 0.66, 0.87, Moderate), vapreotide and pasireotide showed no significant effect.In Pancreaticoduodenectomy subgroup, somatostatin showed an RR of 0.22(95% CI: 0.03, 0.84, Moderate) for preventing CR-POPF.For all the other outcomes, neither somatostatin nor octreotide proved effective.
conclusionWhile robust evidence confirms the efficacy of octreotide in preventing POPF, a critical concern regarding its inconsistent efficacy within the PD subgroup persists. This variability indicates that the overall clinical benefit of octreotide may be predominantly attributable to its utility in non-PD pancreatic resections.
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.