SynthesisBMC gastroenterology2026
Post-ERCP adverse events in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis of post-ERCP pancreatitis incidence with synthesis of risk factors and prevention strategies.
Synthesis in BMC 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEndoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is increasingly used in children with pancreatobiliary disease, but pediatric adverse-event estimates remain variable. We updated the evidence on post-ERCP adverse events in children, pooled post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) incidence when study-level data allowed, and summarized reported risk factors and prevention strategies.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of English-language literature published from January 2015 to June 2025 in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Eligible quantitative analyses included non-overlapping pediatric primary studies reporting extractable numerators and denominators for post-ERCP adverse events. Prior systematic reviews and meta-analyses were used for background comparison and reference checking only. Random-effects meta-analysis of proportions was planned for outcomes with at least three eligible studies. Risk-factor and prevention data were summarized narratively when definitions or adjustment strategies were too heterogeneous for pooling.
resultsSixty-five sources were included in the qualitative synthesis, and 15 non-overlapping primary studies contributed extractable PEP numerators and denominators for quantitative synthesis. PEP was the most frequent adverse event, with a pooled incidence of approximately 7.3% (95% CI, 5.1% to 10.4%; I-squared = 83.7%). Study-level PEP percentages, denominator units, and available adverse-event definition or reporting notes are now shown in Table 1. Bleeding was uncommon and perforation was rare but clinically important. Recurrent or chronic pancreatitis, pancreatic duct manipulation, pancreatic contrast injection, sphincterotomy, difficult cannulation, younger age, lower procedural volume, and trainee involvement or operator experience were recurring risk domains, although not all studies reported stratified event counts. Pediatric evidence for NSAIDs and prophylactic pancreatic stenting remains limited compared with adult data, and both strategies require child-specific dosing, equipment selection, and contraindication assessment.
conclusionsPediatric ERCP carries measurable adverse-event risk, particularly PEP. The pooled estimate provides a current benchmark, but heterogeneity and inconsistent reporting limit certainty. Standardized pediatric definitions, non-overlapping reporting, and prospective multicenter datasets are needed.
trial registrationPROSPERO CRD420251084264.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42458311What 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.