| Title |
How to select patients and timing for rectal indomethacin to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Gastroenterology, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12876-017-0599-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jianhua Wan, Yuping Ren, Zhenhua Zhu, Liang Xia, Nonghua Lu |
| Abstract |
Acute pancreatitis is a severe complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Previous meta-analyses have shown that indomethacin effectively prevents this complication; however, the data are limited. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to clarify the applications for rectal indomethacin. A systematic search was performed in June 2016. Human prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled trials that compared rectally administered indomethacin with a placebo for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) were included. A meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model to assess the outcomes (PEP) using Review Manager 5.0. Seven randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria (n = 3013). The overall incidence of PEP was significantly lower after prophylactic administration of rectal indomethacin than after administration of the placebo (RR, 0.58, 95% CI, 0.40-0.83; P = 0.004). A subgroup analysis was performed for rectal indomethacin administration compared to a placebo in high-risk patients (RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.32-0.65; P < 0.00001) and average-risk patients (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.46-1.22; P = 0.25) and for administration before ERCP (RR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.39-0.79; P = 0.001) and after the procedure (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.26-1.44; P = 0.26). This meta-analysis indicated that prophylactic rectal indomethacin is not suitable for all patients undergoing ERCP but it is safe and effective to prevent PEP in high-risk patients. In addition, rectal indomethacin administration before ERCP is superior to its administration after ERCP for the prevention of PEP. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 58 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 9% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 13 | 22% |
| Unknown | 17 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 29 | 50% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Unknown | 19 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 October 2022.
All research outputs
#2,665,778
of 23,571,271 outputs
Outputs from BMC Gastroenterology
#151
of 1,821 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,439
of 309,033 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Gastroenterology
#2
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,571,271 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,821 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 309,033 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.