ArticleBMC surgery2026
Risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis: a retrospective analysis of nursing-related factors.
Article in BMC surgery, 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
backgroundTo investigate the incidence and risk factors of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) from the perspective of nursing practice, and to provide evidence for developing refined prevention and control strategies.
methodsA single-center retrospective study was conducted on 658 patients who underwent diagnostic or therapeutic ERCP between January 2020 and December 2025. Using a nested case-control design, 45 patients who developed PEP were assigned to the case group, and 180 patients without PEP were matched at a 1:4 ratio as the control group. Baseline characteristics, procedural variables, and perioperative nursing-related factors were collected. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify independent risk factors, and a combined prediction model was constructed to evaluate its performance.
resultsThe overall incidence of PEP was 6.8%, with mild cases accounting for 71.1%. The case group had significantly higher proportions of difficult cannulation and pancreatic duct opacification ≥ 3 times, but significantly lower proportions of receiving comprehensive nursing interventions and cooperation by a dedicated ERCP team. A higher proportion of patients in the case group were assessed as high risk preoperatively. Difficult cannulation (AOR = 6.70, 95% CI: 2.79-16.09, p < 0.001), pancreatic duct opacification ≥ 3 times (AOR = 3.38, 95% CI: 1.40-8.17, p = 0.007), and preoperative high-risk assessment (AOR = 3.98, 95% CI: 1.72-9.20, p = 0.001) were identified as independent risk factors, while comprehensive nursing interventions (AOR = 0.20, 95% CI: 0.09-0.47, p < 0.001) and dedicated ERCP team cooperation (AOR = 0.14, 95% CI: 0.05-0.37, p < 0.001) were protective factors. The combined prediction model showed good discriminative ability (AUC = 0.856) and model fit (Hosmer-Lemeshow test, p = 0.145).
conclusionsComprehensive nursing interventions and dedicated ERCP team cooperation were associated with a lower risk of PEP in this retrospective study. These findings suggest that nursing-related factors may play a role in PEP prevention. We therefore recommend integrating nursing assessment and intervention into standardized ERCP management protocols to enhance overall procedural safety.
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.