Table 3 Summary of findings and quality of evidence assessment for the efficacy and safety of rectal NSAIDs versus no treatment in prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis according to GRADE framework.

From: Efficacy and safety of rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for prophylaxis against post-ERCP pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Main outcomes

Summary of findings

Quality of evidence assessment (GRADE)

No. of patients (trials)

Effect size* (95% CI)

Study limitation§

Inconsistency†

Indirectness

Imprecision‡

Quality

Importance

Post-ERCP pancreatitis

Any

6458 (16)

0.55 (0.42–0.71)

None

None

None

None

High

Critical

Mild

6208 (14)

0.59 (0.48–0.73)

None

None

None

None

High

Critical

Moderate to severe

5955 (13)

0.51 (0.35–0.75)

None

None

None

None

High

Critical

Amylase concentrations

2 h post-ERCP

1126 (5)

−77.85 (−104.61–51.09)

None

None

None

None

High

Important

24 h post-ERCP

420 (3)

−285.02 (−440.22–129.83)

None

−1**

None

−1¶

Low

Important

Hyperamylasemia

1759 (6)

0.59 (0.36–0.96)

None

−1**

None

None

Moderate

Important

Pain

204 (2)

0.31 (0.15–0.61)

None

None

None

−1¶

Moderate

Important

Adverse events

Bleeding

4424 (15)

1.03 (0.58–1.85)

None

None

None

None

High

Critical

Perforation

4424 (15)

3.27 (0.34–31.12)

None

None

None

None

High

Critical

Cholangitis

4424 (15)

0.74 (0.21–2.59)

None

None

None

None

High

Critical

ARF

4424 (15)

0.21 (0.01–4.32)

None

None

None

None

High

Critical

Anal itching

4424 (15)

1.02 (0.15–7.10)

None

None

None

None

High

Critical

Death

4424 (15)

0.44 (0.14–1.42)

None

None

None

None

High

Critical

Total

4424 (15)

0.82 (0.51–1.31)

None

None

None

None

High

Critical

  1. ARF, acute renal failure; ERCP, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; GRADE, grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation; NSAIDs, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. *Relative risks for post-ERCP pancreatitis, hyperamylasemia, pain and adverse events; weighted mean differences in amylase concentrations. §GRADE was downgraded by one level for the limitation of study if more than a quarter of studies included were considered at high risk of bias. †Inconsistency was considered when the heterogeneity between studies was large (I2 > 50%). Imprecision was considered if few patients or few events were included in studies, and wide confidence intervals were identified around the estimate of the effect. **large heterogeneity between studies (I2 > 50%). ¶Low number of studies with few patients included.