↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Pharmacological interventions for acute pancreatitis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

1 blog
1 policy source
23 X users
1 Facebook page


142 Dimensions

Readers on

355 Mendeley
Pharmacological interventions for acute pancreatitis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011384.pub2
Pubmed ID

Elisabetta Moggia, Rahul Koti, Ajay P Belgaumkar, Federico Fazio, Stephen P Pereira, Brian R Davidson, Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy


In people with acute pancreatitis, it is unclear what the role should be for medical treatment as an addition to supportive care such as fluid and electrolyte balance and organ support in people with organ failure. To assess the effects of different pharmacological interventions in people with acute pancreatitis. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2016, Issue 9), MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and trial registers to October 2016 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We also searched the references of included trials to identify further trials. We considered only RCTs performed in people with acute pancreatitis, irrespective of aetiology, severity, presence of infection, language, blinding, or publication status for inclusion in the review. Two review authors independently identified trials and extracted data. We did not perform a network meta-analysis as planned because of the lack of information on potential effect modifiers and differences of type of participants included in the different comparisons, when information was available. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the binary outcomes and rate ratios with 95% CIs for count outcomes using a fixed-effect model and random-effects model. We included 84 RCTs with 8234 participants in this review. Six trials (N = 658) did not report any of the outcomes of interest for this review. The remaining 78 trials excluded 210 participants after randomisation. Thus, a total of 7366 participants in 78 trials contributed to one or more outcomes for this review. The treatments assessed in these 78 trials included antibiotics, antioxidants, aprotinin, atropine, calcitonin, cimetidine, EDTA (ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid), gabexate, glucagon, iniprol, lexipafant, NSAIDs (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs), octreotide, oxyphenonium, probiotics, activated protein C, somatostatin, somatostatin plus omeprazole, somatostatin plus ulinastatin, thymosin, ulinastatin, and inactive control. Apart from the comparison of antibiotics versus control, which included a large proportion of participants with necrotising pancreatitis, the remaining comparisons had only a small proportion of patients with this condition. Most trials included either only participants with severe acute pancreatitis or included a mixture of participants with mild acute pancreatitis and severe acute pancreatitis (75 trials). Overall, the risk of bias in trials was unclear or high for all but one of the trials. seven trials were not funded or funded by agencies without vested interest in results. Pharmaceutical companies partially or fully funded 21 trials. The source of funding was not available from the remaining trials.Since we considered short-term mortality as the most important outcome, we presented only these results in detail in the abstract. Sixty-seven studies including 6638 participants reported short-term mortality. There was no evidence of any differences in short-term mortality in any of the comparisons (very low-quality evidence). With regards to other primary outcomes, serious adverse events (number) were lower than control in participants taking lexipafant (rate ratio 0.67, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.96; N = 290; 1 study; very low-quality evidence), octreotide (rate ratio 0.74, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.89; N = 770; 5 studies; very low-quality evidence), somatostatin plus omeprazole (rate ratio 0.36, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.70; N = 140; 1 study; low-quality evidence), and somatostatin plus ulinastatin (rate ratio 0.30, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.60; N = 122; 1 study; low-quality evidence). The proportion of people with organ failure was lower in octreotide than control (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.97; N = 430; 3 studies; very low-quality evidence). The proportion of people with sepsis was lower in lexipafant than control (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.83; N = 290; 1 study; very low-quality evidence). There was no evidence of differences in any of the remaining comparisons in these outcomes or for any of the remaining primary outcomes (the proportion of participants experiencing at least one serious adverse event and the occurrence of infected pancreatic necrosis). None of the trials reported heath-related quality of life. Very low-quality evidence suggests that none of the pharmacological treatments studied decrease short-term mortality in people with acute pancreatitis. However, the confidence intervals were wide and consistent with an increase or decrease in short-term mortality due to the interventions. We did not find consistent clinical benefits with any intervention. Because of the limitations in the prognostic scoring systems and because damage to organs may occur in acute pancreatitis before they are clinically manifest, future trials should consider including pancreatitis of all severity but power the study to measure the differences in the subgroup of people with severe acute pancreatitis. It may be difficult to power the studies based on mortality. Future trials in participants with acute pancreatitis should consider other outcomes such as complications or health-related quality of life as primary outcomes. Such trials should include health-related quality of life, costs, and return to work as outcomes and should follow patients for at least three months (preferably for at least one year).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 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 355 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 355 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 49 14%
Student > Bachelor 41 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 8%
Researcher 28 8%
Student > Postgraduate 21 6%
Other 78 22%
Unknown 108 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 123 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 28 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 13 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 3%
Unspecified 9 3%
Other 49 14%
Unknown 124 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 25 March 2023.
All research outputs
of 25,390,692 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 12,521 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 305,279 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 240 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,390,692 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,521 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 37.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 305,279 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 240 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.