ArticleiGIE : innovation, investigation and insights2023
Primary needle-knife fistulotomy versus rescue precut: a systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes.
Article in iGIE : innovation, investigation and insights, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cracking the code of post-ERCP pancreatitis: predictors, prevention, and proven strategies from 3323 surgeon-led procedures.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Safety and efficacy of primary precut techniques for biliary cannulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) is encountered especially after difficult and prolonged standard biliary cannulation (SBC). Access sphincterotomy techniques such as needle-knife fistulotomy (NKF) aid in biliary cannulation but carry risks of PEP, bleeding, and perforation. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the safety and success of primary NKF (p-NKF; before attempted cannulation) compared with rescue precut (precut techniques used if SBC failed). Methods: We searched multiple databases through December 2021 for studies comparing outcomes of p-NKF versus rescue precut. The primary outcome was risk of PEP in both groups, and secondary outcomes were rates of adverse events, rates of successful biliary cannulation, and time required for biliary cannulation. Results: Five studies, including 2 randomized controlled trials, with 1375 patients were included in the final analysis, with 541 patients in the p-NKF group and 834 in the control group. Patients undergoing NKF had an overall lower risk of PEP (odds ratio [OR], .33; 95% confidence interval [CI], .17-.66; Conclusions: Although our study was limited to data from expert advanced endoscopists, our analysis showed that performing p-NKF compared with rescue access sphincterotomy was associated with a lower risk of PEP, with similar successful biliary cannulation rates, cannulation times, and overall safety profile.
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.