SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
Research trends in post-ERCP pancreatitis: a dual-database bibliometric analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is associated with several adverse events, of which post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) is the most frequent despite established preventive measures. Clinical reviews evaluate risk factors and interventions, but the organization and development of the research field have received less attention. This study examined the development of the literature on PEP incidence, risk stratification, prediction, and prevention. Methods: The Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) and Scopus were last searched on July 31, 2026. English-language articles and reviews were merged, deduplicated, screened, and manually standardized. The merged dataset was used to analyze publication output, countries, institutions, authors, source journals, and author keywords; citation-dependent analyses were restricted to WoSCC records. VOSviewer and CiteSpace were used for collaboration, co-occurrence, co-citation, clustering, temporal, and citation-burst analyses. Results: The final dataset comprised 1,686 publications, including 1,414 articles and 272 reviews; 1,449 WoSCC records were available for citation-dependent analyses. Annual publication was sporadic before 1996 and peaked at 133 records in 2025. The United States contributed 485 publications, followed by China (306) and Japan (217), and maintained links with countries across all three collaboration clusters. Conclusion: PEP research has moved toward multimodal prevention and individualized risk estimation. The literature remains concentrated in specialist endoscopy journals and established clinical networks, with substantial contributions from East Asia. Broader multicenter collaboration and independent validation are needed before emerging prediction models can inform routine practice.
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.