Skip to main content

Table 1 Author, year of publication, country, inclusion period, number of included patients and relevant patients, study design, and follow-up interval of included studies

From: Endoscopic transmural drainage is associated with improved outcomes in disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

First author

Year of publication

Country

Inclusion period

Included patients

Relevant patients

Study design

Follow-up interval (months)a

Devière et al. [39]

1995

Belgium

Jun 1986–Jul 1993

13

13

Retrospective study

28 (0–36)

Howard et al. [9]

2001

United States

June 1995–June 2000

27

27

Prospective study

18

Tann et al. [4]

2003

United States

1995–2000

26

26

Retrospective study

18c

Varadarajulu et al. [26]

2005

United States

1994–2002

97

23

Retrospective study

24 (6–86)

Lawrence et al. [2]

2008

United States

Mar 1997–Jun 2003

30

30

Retrospective study

38 (3–94)

Pelaez-Luna et al. [21]

2008

United States

Jan 1999–Jul 2006

31

31

Retrospective study

7 (0–90)

Nealon et al. [8]

2009

United States

1985–2006

563

130

Retrospective study

56.4 ± 12.6c

Murage et al. [34]

2010

United States

Nov 1995–Sept 2008

76

76

Retrospective study

22

Varadarajulu et al. [25]

2011

United States

Jan 2003–Apr 2011

62

22

Retrospective study

1026 (678–1036) daysb

Irani et al. [27]

2012

United States

Oct 2002–Oct 2011

15

15

Three were retrospectively identified patients and other 12 patients were included prospectively

25 (6–113)

Pearson et al. [5]

2012

United States

2002–2011

7

7

Retrospective study

264 (29–740) days

Bang et al. [28]

2013

United States

2003––2011; Jan–Dec 2012

76

53

Retrospective study

309.5 (241.5 -362.5) daysb

Shrode et al. [31]

2013

United States

Jan 2002–July 2008

113

64

Retrospective study

12d

Fischer et al. [35]

2014

United States

Jul 2005–Jun 2011

50

50

Retrospective study

18c

Smoczyński et al. [30]

2015

Poland

2001–2013

22

8

Retrospective study

1 yeard

Rana et al. [33]

2015

India

2010––2014

35

35

Retrospective study

28.2 ± 14.0c

Tellez-Avina et al.[41]

2016

Mexico

2008–2015

21

21

Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data

28 (7–76)

Bang et al. [40]

2016

United States

May 2014–Nov 2015

21

21

Prospective study

272 days

Dhar et al. [24]

2017

United States

2002–2014

42

42

Retrospective study

18

Jagielski et al. [29]

2018

Poland

2001––2016

226

63

Retrospective study

65 (14–158)c

Bang et al. [3]

2018

United States

Aug 2003–Dec 2015

291

167

Retrospective study of a prospectively maintained database

1,823 (723–2,656) daysb

Dua et al. [13]

2018

United States

2009––2017

74

22

Retrospective study

14 (7–27)c

Dhir et al. [12]

2018

United States and India

Mar 2011–Dec 2016

88

53

Prospective study

22 (3–46)

Chen et al. [22]

2019

China

Sept 2008–Jan 2016

31

31

Retrospective study on a prospectively maintained database

40 (22–110)

Yamauchi et al. [20]

2019

Japan

Apr 2006–Mar 2017

36

9

Retrospective study

56.2 (12.4–147.1)

Rana et al. (1)e [32]

2019

India

Dec 2011–Nov 2017

12

9

Retrospective study

25.5 ± 17.7 weeksd

Rana et al. (2)e [23]

2019

India

2014–2019

18

18

Retrospective study

16.7 ± 12.8c

Maatman et al. [36]

2019

United States

2005–2017

202

202

Retrospective study

30 (2–165)

Rana et al. (3)e [38]

2019

India

2015–2019

46

33

Retrospective study of a prospectively maintained database

32.5 ± 21.9

Maatman et al. [37]

2020

United States

2005–2018

714

54

Retrospective study

17.9 (3–150)

  1. aReported by median (range) if provided, or
  2. bBy median (interquartile range) if provided, or
  3. cBy mean (range) if provided
  4. dReported as unspecified average (mean or median) by study
  5. eThree studies with the same first author and year of publication were denoted with (1), (2), and (3) here and in subsequent tables and figures for clarity