Comparative Efficacy of Rectal Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs and Pancreatic Duct Stents in Preventing Pancreatitis After Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: A Network Analysis

Yin Wang
{"title":"Comparative Efficacy of Rectal Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs and Pancreatic Duct Stents in Preventing Pancreatitis After Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: A Network Analysis","authors":"Yin Wang","doi":"10.31031/gmr.2020.04.000593","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background/Aims: Some meta-analyses suggest that pancreatic duct stents (PDS) placement and rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) can prevent post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP), but which is favorable is unclear. Thus, we conducted network analyses to compare treatment efficacies. Materials and Methods: The Cochrane controlled trial registry, PubMed, China Biology Medicine disc (CBM disc) and Embase were reviewed, focusing on the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of rectal NSAID and PDS prophylaxis throughout the PEP prophylaxis process On September 25, 2019. Reviewers extract data independently and randomly. The Cochrane handbook was used as a standard to assess migration risk, and intervention management was implemented in a systematic way. The rationality of the evidence is determined by means of grade evaluation, proposal formulation and evaluation, and the main output result is the effect of intervention. Results: OR= 0.38 95% CI 0.19 to 0.78. Network analysis of all trials demonstrated the quality of PDS OR 0.32 95% CI 0.21 to 0.48, DIC: OR 0.30 95% CI 0.18 to 0.49, ID: OR= 0.55 95% CI 0.39 to 0.77, NAP: OR= 0.55 95% CI 0.39 to 0.77. Network analysis ranking showed that PDS placement was the best way for preventing PEP, followed by NAP, ID, and DIC. Conclusion: This evidence suggests that PDS placement is most effective in reducing PEP risk. However, rectal NSAIDs may be more ideal due to decreased costs.","PeriodicalId":130011,"journal":{"name":"Gastroenterology: Medicine & Research","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gastroenterology: Medicine & Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31031/gmr.2020.04.000593","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background/Aims: Some meta-analyses suggest that pancreatic duct stents (PDS) placement and rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) can prevent post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP), but which is favorable is unclear. Thus, we conducted network analyses to compare treatment efficacies. Materials and Methods: The Cochrane controlled trial registry, PubMed, China Biology Medicine disc (CBM disc) and Embase were reviewed, focusing on the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of rectal NSAID and PDS prophylaxis throughout the PEP prophylaxis process On September 25, 2019. Reviewers extract data independently and randomly. The Cochrane handbook was used as a standard to assess migration risk, and intervention management was implemented in a systematic way. The rationality of the evidence is determined by means of grade evaluation, proposal formulation and evaluation, and the main output result is the effect of intervention. Results: OR= 0.38 95% CI 0.19 to 0.78. Network analysis of all trials demonstrated the quality of PDS OR 0.32 95% CI 0.21 to 0.48, DIC: OR 0.30 95% CI 0.18 to 0.49, ID: OR= 0.55 95% CI 0.39 to 0.77, NAP: OR= 0.55 95% CI 0.39 to 0.77. Network analysis ranking showed that PDS placement was the best way for preventing PEP, followed by NAP, ID, and DIC. Conclusion: This evidence suggests that PDS placement is most effective in reducing PEP risk. However, rectal NSAIDs may be more ideal due to decreased costs.
直肠非甾体抗炎药和胰管支架预防内镜逆行胰胆管造影后胰腺炎的比较疗效:网络分析
背景/目的:一些荟萃分析表明,胰管支架(PDS)放置和直肠非甾体抗炎药(NSAIDs)可以预防内镜后逆行胆管胰腺炎(PEP),但哪一种有利尚不清楚。因此,我们进行了网络分析来比较治疗效果。材料与方法:回顾Cochrane对照试验注册库、PubMed、中国生物医学光盘(CBM光盘)和Embase,重点关注2019年9月25日在PEP预防过程中直肠NSAID和PDS预防的随机对照试验(RCTs)。审稿人独立、随机地提取数据。采用Cochrane手册作为评估迁移风险的标准,并系统地实施干预管理。证据的合理性通过等级评价、建议制定、评价等手段确定,主要输出结果为干预效果。结果:OR= 0.38, 95% CI 0.19 ~ 0.78。所有试验的网络分析显示PDS的质量OR为0.32 95% CI 0.21 ~ 0.48, DIC为0.30 95% CI 0.18 ~ 0.49, ID为0.55 95% CI 0.39 ~ 0.77, NAP为0.55 95% CI 0.39 ~ 0.77。网络分析排名显示,放置PDS是预防PEP的最佳方法,其次是NAP、ID和DIC。结论:PDS放置是降低PEP风险最有效的方法。然而,直肠非甾体抗炎药可能更理想,因为成本较低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信