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