Early routine ERCP strategy vs early conservative management with or without delayed or selective ERCP strategy: Local complications defined by the Atlanta Classification (necrosis, abscess, pseudocyst)
Early routine ERCP strategy showed no clear difference in local complications defined by the Atlanta Classification (necrosis,… compared with early conservative management with or without delayed or selective… (moderate certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Early routine ERCP strategy vs early conservative management with or without delayed or selective ERCP strategy Local complications defined by the Atlanta Classification (necrosis, abscess, pseudocyst) · patients with unselected patients with acute gallstone pancreatitis Early routine ERCP strategy showed no clear difference in local complications defined by the Atlanta Classification (necrosis,… compared with early conservative management with or without delayed or selective… (moderate certainty). Early routine endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography strategy versus early conservative management… (2012) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.86 [0.52, 1.43] | 4 studies · 517 participants | Moderate |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Early routine endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography strategy versus early conservative management strategy in acute gallstone… 2012 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.