Placement of prophylactic pancreatic stents to prevent post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis in high-risk patients: A meta-analysis

Table 1 Main characteristics of the included studies

Ref.	Jadad	Total (n)	Risk factors/procedures	Stent type	Time for spontaneous dislodgement
Kawaguch et al[16]	4	120	History of previous PEP, difficult cannulation, SOD	5F (3 cm)	3 d 96.7% (58/60)
Lee et al[17]	5	101	Difficult cannulation	3F (4, 6, 8 cm)	7 d 94% (45/48)
Pan et al[18]	2	40	High-risk patients without	5F	NA
Sofuni et al[14]	5	407	High-risk patients irrespective of the type of the risk factor	5F (3 cm)	3 d 95.7% (178/186)
Ito et al[19]	4	70	Difficult cannulation	5F (4 cm)	NA
Sofuni et al[15]	3	201	High-risk patients irrespective of the type of the risk factor	5F (3 cm)	3 d 95.7% (90/94)
Tsuchiya et al[20]	3	64	Bile duct sphincterotomy	5F (3, 4 cm)	NA
Harewood et al[21]	4	19	Endoscopic ampullectomy	5F (3, 5 cm)	1 d 60% (6/10)
Fazel et al[22]	2	74	Difficult cannulation, SOM, billiy ES	5F (2 cm)	NA
Tarnasky et al[23]	2	80	SOD, SOM	5F or 7F (2, 2.5 cm)	NA

PEP: Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis; NA: Not available; ES: Endoscopic sphincterotomy; SOD: Sphincter of Oddi dysfunction; SOM: Sphincter of Oddi manometry.