Cochrane · systematic review · CD011392
Management strategies for pancreatic pseudocysts
Gurusamy, KS, Pallari, E, Hawkins, N, 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
12
current version
GRADE rated
7
No studies
5
Included studies
NR
No studies 5 · 41.7%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 5 · 41.7%Low 2 · 16.7%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
Management strategies for pancreatic pseudocysts: primary outcomes
Population: patients with pancreatic pseudocysts
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Short‐term mortality | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Endoscopic drainage versus EUS‐guided drainage | OR 3 [0.11, 79.91] | 2 studies · 89 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
EUS‐guided drainage with nasocystic drainage versus EUS‐guided drainage | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 47 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Open surgical drainage versus EUS‐guided drainage | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 40 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Serious adverse events | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Open surgical drainage versus EUS‐guided drainage Scale from: 0 to 100. Higher indicates better | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 40 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Management strategies for pancreatic pseudocysts: a network meta‐analysis
Population: patients with pancreatic pseudocysts
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Adverse events | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Endoscopic drainage versus EUS‐guided drainage | OR 2.42 [0.51, 11.46] | 2 studies · 89 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
EUS‐guided drainage with nasocystic drainage versus EUS‐guided drainage | OR 0.2 [0.06, 0.73] | 1 study · 47 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Open surgical drainage versus EUS‐guided drainage | OR 11.18 [0.56, 222.98] | 1 study · 40 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Hospital stay | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Costs | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |