Role of Rectal Diclofenac Suppository for Prevention and Its Impact on Severity of Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis in High-Risk Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim was to study the role of rectal diclofenac in prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis and its impact on severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis. METHODS: We conducted a single-center, prospective, open-labeled, randomized trial for evaluating the use of rectal diclofenac in prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk patients. We assessed 526 patients coming for ERCP for different indications. Four hundred patients were eligible for the study. Those not fitting the high-risk criteria and with acute pancreatitis were excluded. These patients were randomized in two groups: 200 patients received rectal diclofenac prior to or during the procedure, while 200 patients received placebos. Serum amylase was measured at 2 and 36 hours. Post-ERCP pancreatitis was defined as serum amylase > 3 times upper limit of normal with associated severe abdominal pain. Severity was graded according to days of hospitalization and complications. RESULTS: Twenty-nine out of 400 (7.2%) patients developed post-ERCP pancreatitis. Six out of 200 (3%) patients in rectal diclofenac group developed post-ERCP pancreatitis compared to 23 out of 200 (11.5%) patients in placebo group. The difference was statistically significant (P = 0.001). All patients (six) in rectal diclofenac group developed mild pancreatitis as compared to severe pancreatitis in four and moderate pancreatitis in five patients in the placebo group. CONCLUSION: Rectal diclofenac prior to or during ERCP in high-risk patients reduces the incidence as well as severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis compared to placebo.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".