↓ Skip to main content

Rectal indomethacin versus placebo to reduce the incidence of pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: results of a controlled clinical trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Gastroenterology, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
78 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
81 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Rectal indomethacin versus placebo to reduce the incidence of pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: results of a controlled clinical trial
Published in
BMC Gastroenterology, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12876-015-0314-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Víctor Fernando Andrade-Dávila, Mariana Chávez-Tostado, Carlos Dávalos-Cobián, Jesús García-Correa, Alejandro Montaño-Loza, Clotilde Fuentes-Orozco, Michel Dassaejv Macías-Amezcua, Jesús García-Rentería, Jorge Rendón-Félix, José Antonio Cortés-Lares, Gabriela Ambriz-González, Ana Olivia Cortés-Flores, Andrea del Socorro Alvarez-Villaseñor, Alejandro González-Ojeda

Abstract

Acute pancreatitis is the most common major complication after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Many drugs have been evaluated for prophylaxis, including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), which are potent inhibitors of phospholipase A2 and play a role in the pathogenesis of acute pancreatitis. Rectal NSAIDs have been shown in prospective studies to decrease the incidence of this complication, but the indication is not generalized in clinical practice. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of rectal administration of indomethacin in reducing the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk patients. This was a controlled clinical trial where patients with an elevated risk of developing post-ERCP pancreatitis were assigned to receive 100 mg of rectal indomethacin or a 2.6 g suppository of glycerin immediately after ERCP, without placement of a pancreatic stent. The patients were determined to be at high risk based on validated patient- and procedure-related risk factors. Post-ERCP pancreatitis was defined as the presence of new upper abdominal pain, hyperamylasemia/hyperlipasemia (at least three times the upper limit) 2 hours after the procedure and hospitalization at least 48 hours because of the complication. Pancreatitis severity was defined according to Cotton's criteria. One hundred sixty-six patients were included; 82 in the study group and 84 in the placebo group. Patients had at least one major and/or two minor risk factors for developing post-ERCP pancreatitis. The incidence of the complication was 4.87 % (4/82) in the study group and 20.23 % (17/84) in the placebo group; this difference was significant (P = 0.01). According to Cotton's criteria, 17 patients (80.9 %) developed mild pancreatitis and 4 (19.1 %) had moderate pancreatitis; 3 of these 4 patients belonged to the placebo group (P = 0.60). Based on these results, an absolute risk reduction of 0.15 (15 %), a relative risk reduction of 0.75 (75 %) and a number needed to treat of 6.5 patients were calculated to prevent an episode of post-ERCP pancreatitis. There was no mortality. Rectal indomethacin reduced the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis among patients at high risk of developing this complication. National Clinical Trials NCT02110810 . Date April 7, 2014.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Peru 1 1%
Unknown 80 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 14%
Student > Bachelor 8 10%
Student > Postgraduate 7 9%
Student > Master 7 9%
Other 6 7%
Other 19 23%
Unknown 23 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 49%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Mathematics 1 1%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 27 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 December 2019.
All research outputs
#7,363,207
of 22,817,213 outputs
Outputs from BMC Gastroenterology
#467
of 1,744 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,906
of 264,073 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Gastroenterology
#11
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,817,213 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,744 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,073 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.