Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 847

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Endoscopic versus Surgical Drainage of the Pancreatic Duct in Chronic Pancreatitis

Cahen, Djuna L., Gouma, Dirk J., Nio, Yung, Rauws, Erik A. J., Boermeester, Marja A., Busch, Olivier R., Stoker, Jaap, Laméris, Johan S., Dijkgraaf, Marcel G.W., Huibregtse, Kees, Bruno, Marco J.·2007·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: For patients with chronic pancreatitis and a dilated pancreatic duct, ductal decompression is recommended. We conducted a randomized trial to compare endoscopic and surgical drainage of the pancreatic duct. METHODS: All symptomatic patients with chronic pancreatitis and a distal obstruction of the pancreatic duct but without an inflammatory mass were eligible for the study. We randomly assigned patients to undergo endoscopic transampullary drainage of the pancreatic duct or operative pancreaticojejunostomy. The primary end point was the average Izbicki pain score during 2 years of follow-up. The secondary end points were pain relief at the end of follow-up, physical and mental health, morbidity, mortality, length of hospital stay, number of procedures undergone, and changes in pancreatic function. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients underwent randomization: 19 to endoscopic treatment (16 of whom underwent lithotripsy) and 20 to operative pancreaticojejunostomy. During the 24 months of follow-up, patients who underwent surgery, as compared with those who were treated endoscopically, had lower Izbicki pain scores (25 vs. 51, P<0.001) and better physical health summary scores on the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form General Health Survey questionnaire (P=0.003). At the end of follow-up, complete or partial pain relief was achieved in 32% of patients assigned to endoscopic drainage as compared with 75% of patients assigned to surgical drainage (P=0.007). Rates of complications, length of hospital stay, and changes in pancreatic function were similar in the two treatment groups, but patients receiving endoscopic treatment required more procedures than did patients in the surgery group (a median of eight vs. three, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Surgical drainage of the pancreatic duct was more effective than endoscopic treatment in patients with obstruction of the pancreatic duct due to chronic pancreatitis. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN04572410 [controlled-trials.com].).

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejmoa060610

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 847

Metadata

Authors
Cahen, D. L., Gouma, D. J., Nio, Y., Rauws, E. A. J., Boermeester, M. A., Busch, O. R., Stoker, J., Laméris, J. S., Dijkgraaf, M. G. W., Huibregtse, K., & Bruno, M. J.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2007-02-15
Volume
356
Issue
7
Pages
676-684
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2063098623
Cited by
847
References
1
FWCI
50.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Endoscopic versus Surgical Drainage of the Pancreatic Duct in Chronic Pancreatitis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa060610
The paper
Cahen, D. L., Gouma, D. J., Nio, Y., Rauws, E. A. J., Boermeester, M. A., Busch, O. R., Stoker, J., Laméris, J. S., Dijkgraaf, M. G. W., Huibregtse, K., & Bruno, M. J. (2007). Endoscopic versus Surgical Drainage of the Pancreatic Duct in Chronic Pancreatitis. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa060610

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.