Guidewire-assisted cannulation of the common bile duct for the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cannulation techniques have been recognized to be important in causing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP). However, considerable controversy exists about the usefulness of the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique for the prevention of PEP. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness and safety of the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique compared to the conventional contrast-assisted cannulation technique for the prevention of PEP. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases and major conference proceedings, up to February 2012, using the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases model with no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs comparing the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique versus the contrast-assisted cannulation technique in patients undergoing ERCP. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors conducted study selection, data extraction and methodological quality assessment independently. Using intention-to-treat analysis with random-effects models, we combined dichotomous data to obtain risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed heterogeneity using the Chi² test (P < 0.15) and I² statistic (> 25%). To explore sources of heterogeneity, we conducted a priori subgroup analyses according to trial design, publication type, risk of bias, use of precut sphincterotomy, inadvertent guidewire insertion or contrast injection of the pancreatic duct (PD), use of a PD stent, cannulation device, and trainee involvement in cannulation. To assess the robustness of our results we carried out sensitivity analyses using different summary statistics (RR versus odds ratio (OR)) and meta-analytic models (fixed-effect versus random-effects), and per protocol analysis. MAIN RESULTS: Twelve RCTs comprising 3450 participants were included. There was statistical heterogeneity among trials for the outcome of PEP (P = 0.04, I² = 45%). The guidewire-assisted cannulation technique significantly reduced PEP compared to the contrast-assisted cannulation technique (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.82). In addition, the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique was associated with greater primary cannulation success (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.15), less precut sphincterotomy (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.95), and no increase in other ERCP-related complications. Subgroup analyses indicated that this significant risk reduction in PEP with the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique existed only in 'non-crossover' trials (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.42). The results were robust in sensitivity analyses. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the contrast-assisted cannulation technique, the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique increases the primary cannulation rate and reduces the risk of PEP, and it appears to be the most appropriate first-line cannulation technique.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".