Cochrane · systematic review · CD011383
Interventions for necrotising pancreatitis
Gurusamy, KS, Belgaumkar, AP, Haswell, A, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2016 · Cochrane Library
GutAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
14
current version
GRADE rated
11
No studies
3
Included studies
NR
No studies 3 · 21.4%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 10 · 71.4%Low 1 · 7.1%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Interventions for necrotising pancreatitis: mortality
Population: people with necrotising pancreatitis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Short‐term mortality | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Peritoneal lavage vs. open necrosectomy | OR 1.9 [0.73, 4.94] | 3 studies · 80 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Minimally invasive step‐up approach vs. open necrosectomy | OR 0.65 [0.32, 1.34] | 2 studies · 160 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Delayed open necrosectomy vs. early open necrosectomy | OR 0.29 [0.06, 1.38] | 1 study · 36 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Minimally invasive step‐up approach: video‐assisted vs. endoscopic | OR 4.5 [0.41, 49.08] | 1 study · 22 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Minimally invasive step‐up approach: planned surgery vs. continued percutaneous drainage | OR 21 [0.64, 689.99] | 1 study · 8 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Interventions for necrotising pancreatitis: other primary outcomes
Population: people with necrotising pancreatitis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Minimally invasive step‐up approach vs. open necrosectomy | OR 0.38 [0.14, 1.01] | 1 study · 72 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Peritoneal lavage vs. open necrosectomy | Rate ratio 1.28 [0.92, 1.78] | 2 studies · 56 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Minimally invasive step‐up approach: video‐assisted vs. endoscopic | Rate ratio 12.55 [0.72, 219.54] | 1 study · 22 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Organ failure | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Interventions for necrotising pancreatitis for necrotising pancreatitis: secondary outcomes
Population: people with necrotising pancreatitis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Adverse events (number) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Peritoneal lavage vs. open necrosectomy | Rate ratio 1.01 [0.63, 1.62] | 1 study · 21 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Minimally invasive step‐up approach vs. open necrosectomy | Rate ratio 0.41 [0.25, 0.68] | 1 study · 88 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Minimally invasive step‐up approach: video‐assisted vs. endoscopic | Rate ratio 11.7 [1.52, 89.87] | 1 study · 22 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |