SynthesisBMC gastroenterology2025
Efficacy of N-Acetylcysteine in preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC gastroenterology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a widely utilized procedure for diagnosing and treating biliary and pancreatic disorders. However, it carries a risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). N-Acetylcysteine (NAC) has been proposed as a potential prophylactic agent due to its antioxidant properties, yet its efficacy remains debated. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of NAC in preventing PEP in patients undergoing ERCP.
methodWe conducted a comprehensive literature search across multiple databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and EMBASE, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on humans published from January 2000 to end of August 2024. The primary outcome was the incidence of PEP in the group who received the NAC compared to the group receiving routine medication. Study selection and data extraction was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. Quality assessment was accomplished using risk of bias (RoB2) tool for RCTs.
resultsA total of four RCTs involving 773 patients were included in the final analysis. The meta-analysis demonstrated a non-significant lower incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis in the NAC group compared to controls (Risk Ratio: 0.66; 95% Confidence Interval: 0.38-1.16). Sensitivity analyses indicated low robustness of these results, with moderate heterogeneity observed among studies (I
conclusionWhile NAC shows promise in reducing the incidence of PEP, the current evidence does not support its routine use as a prophylactic agent. Further research is warranted to clarify its role and optimize preventive strategies for 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.