↓ Skip to main content

Management strategies for pancreatic pseudocysts

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
117 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Management strategies for pancreatic pseudocysts
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011392.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy, Elena Pallari, Neil Hawkins, Stephen P Pereira, Brian R Davidson

Abstract

Pancreatic pseudocysts are walled-off peripancreatic fluid collections. There is considerable uncertainty about how pancreatic pseudocysts should be treated. To assess the benefits and harms of different management strategies for pancreatic pseudocysts. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 9, and MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and trials registers until September 2015. We also searched the references of included trials and contacted trial authors. We only considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people with pancreatic pseudocysts, regardless of size, presence of symptoms, or aetiology. We placed no restrictions on blinding, language, or publication status of the trials. Two review authors independently identified trials and extracted data. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) with RevMan 5, based on an available-case analysis for direct comparisons, using fixed-effect and random-effect models. We also conducted indirect comparisons (rather than network meta-analysis), since there were no outcomes for which direct and indirect evidence were available. We included four RCTs, with 177 participants, in this review. After one participant was excluded, 176 participants were randomised to endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage (88 participants), endoscopic drainage (44 participants), EUS-guided drainage with nasocystic drainage (24 participants), and open surgical drainage (20 participants). The comparisons included endoscopic drainage versus EUS-guided drainage (two trials), EUS-guided drainage with nasocystic drainage versus EUS-guided drainage alone (one trial), and open surgical drainage versus EUS-guided drainage (one trial). The participants were mostly symptomatic, with pancreatic pseudocysts resulting from acute and chronic pancreatitis of varied aetiology. The mean size of the pseudocysts ranged between 70 mm and 155 mm across studies. Although the trials appeared to include similar types of participants for all comparisons, we were unable to assess this statistically, since there were no direct and indirect results for any of the comparisons.All the trials were at unclear or high risk of bias, and the overall quality of evidence was low or very low for all outcomes. One death occurred in the endoscopic drainage group (1/44; 2.3%), due to bleeding. There were no deaths in the other groups. The differences in the serious adverse events were imprecise. Short-term health-related quality of life (HRQoL; four weeks to three months) was worse (MD -21.00; 95% CI -33.21 to -8.79; participants = 40; studies = 1; range: 0 to 100; higher score indicates better) and the costs were higher in the open surgical drainage group than the EUS-guided drainage group (MD 8040 USD; 95% CI 3020 to 13,060; participants = 40; studies = 1). There were fewer adverse events in the EUS-guided drainage with nasocystic drainage group than in the EUS-guided drainage alone (OR 0.20; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.73; participants = 47; studies = 1), or the endoscopic drainage group (indirect comparison: OR 0.08; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.61). Participants with EUS-guided drainage with nasocystic drainage also had shorter hospital stays compared to EUS-guided drainage alone (MD -8.10 days; 95% CI -9.79 to -6.41; participants = 47; studies = 1), endoscopic drainage (indirect comparison: MD -7.10 days; 95% CI -9.38 to -4.82), or open surgical drainage group (indirect comparison: MD -12.30 days; 95% CI -14.48 to -10.12). The open surgical drainage group had longer hospital stays than the EUS-guided drainage group (MD 4.20 days; 95% CI 2.82 to 5.58; participants = 40; studies = 1); the endoscopic drainage group had longer hospital stays than the open drainage group (indirect comparison: -5.20 days; 95% CI -7.26 to -3.14). The need for additional invasive interventions was higher for the endoscopic drainage group than the EUS-guided drainage group (OR 11.13; 95% CI 2.85 to 43.44; participants = 89; studies = 2), and the open drainage group (indirect comparison: OR 23.69; 95% CI 1.40 to 400.71). The differences between groups were imprecise for the other comparisons that could be performed. None of the trials reported long-term mortality, medium-term HRQoL (three months to one year), long-term HRQoL (longer than one year), time-to-return to normal activities, or time-to-return to work. Very low-quality evidence suggested that the differences in mortality and serious adverse events between treatments were imprecise. Low-quality evidence suggested that short-term HRQoL (four weeks to three months) was worse, and the costs were higher in the open surgical drainage group than in the EUS-guided drainage group. Low-quality or very low-quality evidence suggested that EUS-guided drainage with nasocystic drainage led to fewer adverse events than EUS-guided or endoscopic drainage, and shorter hospital stays when compared to EUS-guided drainage, endoscopic drainage, or open surgical drainage, while EUS-guided drainage led to shorter hospital stays than open surgical drainage. Low-quality evidence suggested that there was a higher need for additional invasive procedures with endoscopic drainage than EUS-guided drainage, while it was lower in the open surgical drainage than in the endoscopic drainage group.Further RCTs are needed to compare EUS-guided drainage, with or without nasocystic drainage, in symptomatic patients with pancreatic pseudocysts that require treatment. Future trials should include patient-oriented outcomes such as mortality, serious adverse events, HRQoL, hospital stay, return-to-normal activity, number of work days lost, and the need for additional procedures, for a minimum follow-up period of two to three years.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 117 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 117 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 21 18%
Researcher 15 13%
Student > Master 14 12%
Other 14 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 10%
Other 40 34%
Unknown 1 <1%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 76 65%
Unspecified 14 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 2%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 1 <1%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 17 April 2019.
All research outputs
#3,570,940
of 13,622,595 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,403
of 10,684 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,623
of 263,239 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#186
of 256 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,622,595 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,684 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.1. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 263,239 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 256 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.