Meta-Analysis
Copyright ©2014 Baishideng Publishing Group Inc.
World J Gastroenterol. Oct 14, 2014; 20(38): 14033-14039
Published online Oct 14, 2014. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i38.14033
Table 1 Baseline characteristics of the included trials in the meta-analysis
Ref.Definition ofGroupAge (yr)Diagnosis (n)
GenderEndoscopistType ofSedationProphy
complicationsPancreaticCholangio-Others(M/F)stentlactic
cancercarcinomaantibiotics
Giorgioet al[10]According to the criteria of Cotton et al[32]EST72 ± 66431151/35Two experienced endoscopistsPlastic stentNot mentionedNot mentioned
Non-EST75 ± 66728147/39
Artifon et al[11]According to the criteria of Cotton et al[32]EST72.1300718/19Three experienced endoscopistsCovered SEMSMidazolam and fentanylBefore ERCP
Non-EST65.4300712/25
Zhou et al[12]According to the criteria of Cotton et al[32]EST65.1 ± 9.51126424/17Two experienced endoscopistsUncovered SEMSNot mentionedDuring ERCP
Non-EST64.0 ± 7.51027423/18
Table 2 Characteristics of randomized comparisons of endoscopic sphincterotomy and non-endoscopic sphincterotomy groups n (%)
Ref.GroupSuccessful stent insertionPancreatitisBleedingAcute cholangitisStent occlusionStentmigrationDuodenal perforation
Giorgio et al[10]EST92 (95.8)2 (2.2)3 (3.3)NR1 (1.1)3 (3.3)NR
Non-EST90 (93.7)2 (2.2)0 (0)2 (2.2)3 (3.3)
Artifon et al[11]EST37 (100)0 (0)5 (13.5)NR3 (8.1)6 (16.2)4 (10.8)
Non-EST37 (100)0 (0)0 (0)3 (8.1)1 (2.7)0 (0)
Zhou et al[12]EST41 (100)4 (9.8)NR24 (58.5)5 (12.2)NRNR
Non-EST41 (100)13 (31.7)13 (31.7)4 (9.8)
Table 3 Quality analysis of the included trials
Ref.Randomization methodAllocation concealmentBlindingWithdrawals
Giorgio et al[10]Not mentionedAdequateNot mentionedNot mentioned
Artifon et al[11]Computer-generatedAdequateDouble-blindNot mentioned
Zhou et al[12]Computer-generatedAdequateNot mentionedNot mentioned