Updated meta-analysis of pancreatic stent placement in preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

Table 1 Characteristics of the included studies

Ref.	Type	Study type	Intervention	Stent	Patients	n (stent)	n (control)
Smithline et al[16], 1993	Article	RCT	Biliary ES	5-7F, 2-2.5 cm	SOD	43	50
Sherman et al[17], 1996	Abstract	RCT	Precut biliary ES	5-7F, 2-2.5 cm		46	58
Tarnasky et al[12], 1998	Article	RCT	Biliary ES	5-7F, 2-2.5 cm	SOD	41	39
Tarnasky et al[12], 1998	Abstract	RCT	Biliary ES	5F, 2 cm		36	38
Patel et al[18], 1999	Abstract	RCT	Pancreatic ES	5-7F, 2-2.5 cm	SOD	18	18
Fazel et al[19], 2003	Article	RCT	ERCP	5F, 2 cm	Difficult cannulation	38	36
Harewood et al[20], 2005	Article	RCT	Endoscopic ampullectomy	5F, 3-5 cm	Ampullary adenoma	11	8
Sofuni et al[21], 2007	Article	RCT	ERCP, etc.	5F, 3 cm	Various	98	103
Tsuchiya et al[22], 2007	Article	RCT	ERCP, etc.	5F, 3-4 cm	Various	32	32
Ito et al[23], 2010	Article	RCT	ES, IDUS	5F, 4 cm	With high-risk factors	35	35
Pan et al[24], 2011	Article	RCT	ERCP	5F	With high-risk factors	20	20
Sofuni et al[25], 2011	Article	RCT	ERCP, etc.	5F, 3 cm	With high-risk factors	213	213
Kawaguchi et al[26], 2012	Article	RCT	ERCP, ES, IDUS	5F, 3 cm	With high-risk factors	60	60
Cha et al[27], 2012	Article	RCT	ES	5-7F, 2-2.5 cm	Difficult cannulation	46	58
Lee et al[28], 2012	Article	RCT	ES, IDUS, etc.	3, 4, 6, 8F	Difficult cannulation	50	51

RCT: Randomized controlled trial; ES: Endoscopic sphincterotomy; IDUS: Intraductal ultrasonography.