Risk factors for post‑retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis in patients with common bile duct stones: A meta‑analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has become a common treatment method for common bile duct stones. However, ERCP is also associated with a high risk of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP). Identification of risk factors is essential for reducing the incidence of PEP. The present study aimed to summarize the risk factors for PEP by performing a meta-analysis. Therefore, studies published between 2000 and 2022 were screened in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Digital Periodicals and the Weipu Database, with no language restrictions. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the quality of the included studies. Stata 17.0 software was utilized for the meta-analysis of 14 possible risk factors. Overall, 15 high-quality studies were included into the present meta-analysis. The results showed that female [odds ratio (OR), 1.42; 95% CI, 1.23-1.64), age <60 years (OR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.06-2.21), difficult intubation (OR, 4.87; 95% CI, 2.73-8.68), ≥3 cannulation attempts (OR, 9.64; 95% CI, 4.16-22.35), cannulation time ≥10 min (OR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.67-3.35), history of pancreatitis (OR, 2.95; 95% CI, 1.06-5.51), pancreatic duct visualization (OR, 3.63; 95% CI, 2.47-5.34) and sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (OR, 5.72; 95% CI, 1.80-18.24) are potential risk factors for PEP (P<0.05). In conclusion, the present meta-analysis suggests that PEP can be affected by several risk factors, particularly the technique-related factors such as the frequency and time of cannulation. Therefore, effective precautions should be taken as early as possible to reduce the incidence of PEP.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".