ReviewTherapeutic advances in gastroenterology2026
EUS-guided pancreatic duct drainage-technical tips and outcomes: narrative review.
Review in Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic duct drainage (EUS-PDD) is becoming an alternative treatment in patients with difficult retrograde access to the pancreatic duct due to difficulty in cannulation or surgically altered anatomy. This is narrative review for technical tips and outcomes for EUS-PDD. EUS-PDD is performed via one of two approaches: EUS-guided rendezvous and EUS-guided transmural drainage and involves the insertion of plastic or metal stents. While the use of plastic has been extensively described, fully covered self-expandable metal stents were reported in only six studies, and with a small number of patients. A meta-analysis including 27 trials and 902 patients reported technical success, clinical success, and adverse event (AE) rates of 89%, 88%, and 17%, respectively. The most common AE for post-EUS-PDD was acute pancreatitis, which occurred at a rate of 3%. The cumulative rates of bleeding, perforation, pancreatic leak, and infection were 2%, 2%, 1%, and 1%, respectively. The re-intervention rate due to stent dislocation, occlusion, or other reasons was 19%. In cases of surgically altered anatomy, the EUS-guided approach is significantly superior to the enteroscopy-guided approach with regard to pancreatic duct opacification (87% vs 30%;
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.