The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Minimally invasive 'step-up approach' versus maximal necrosectomy in patients with acute necrotising pancreatitis (PANTER trial): design and rationale of a randomised controlled multicenter trial [ISRCTN13975868]
Open accessAbstract
Background: The initial treatment of acute necrotizing pancreatitis is conservative. Intervention is indicated in patients with (suspected) infected necrotizing pancreatitis. In the Netherlands, the standard intervention is necrosectomy by laparotomy followed by continuous postoperative lavage (CPL). In recent years several minimally invasive strategies have been introduced. So far, these strategies have never been compared in a randomised controlled trial. The PANTER study (PAncreatitis, Necrosectomy versus sTEp up appRoach) was conceived to yield the evidence needed for a considered policy decision. Methods/design: 88 patients with (suspected) infected necrotizing pancreatitis will be randomly allocated to either group A) minimally invasive 'step-up approach' starting with drainage followed, if necessary, by videoscopic assisted retroperitoneal debridement (VARD) or group B) maximal necrosectomy by laparotomy. Both procedures are followed by CPL. Patients will be recruited from 20 hospitals, including all Dutch university medical centres, over a 3-year period. The primary endpoint is the proportion of patients suffering from postoperative major morbidity and mortality. Secondary endpoints are complications, new onset sepsis, length of hospital and intensive care stay, quality of life and total (direct and indirect) costs. To demonstrate that the 'step-up approach' can reduce the major morbidity and mortality rate from 45 to 16%, with 80% power at 5% alpha, a total sample size of 88 patients was calculated. Discussion: The PANTER-study is a randomised controlled trial that will provide evidence on the merits of a minimally invasive 'step-up approach' in patients with (suspected) infected necrotizing pancreatitis.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cites
Vincent, J. L., Moreno, R., Takala, J., Willatts, S., De Mendonça, A., Bruining, H., Reinhart, C. K., Suter, P. M., & Thijs, L. G. (1996) · Intensive Care Medicine · doi:10.1007/bf01709751 · Cited by 11,674
Metadata
- Authors
- Besselink, M. G., van Santvoort, H. C., Nieuwenhuijs, V. B., Boermeester, M. A., Bollen, T. L., Buskens, E., Dejong, C. H., van Eijck, C. H., van Goor, H., Hofker, S. S., Lameris, J. S., van Leeuwen, M. S., Ploeg, R. J., van Ramshorst, B., Schaapherder, A. F., Cuesta, M. A., Consten, E. C., Gouma, D. J., van der Harst, E., Hesselink, E. J., Houdijk, L. P., Karsten, T. M., van Laarhoven, C. J., Pierie, J.-P. E., Rosman, C., Bilgen, E. J. S., Timmer, R., van der Tweel, I., de Wit, R. J., Witteman, B. J., Gooszen, H. G., & members of the Dutch Acute Pancreatitis Study Group
- Venue
- BMC Surgery
- Published
- 2006-04-11
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 6-6
- ISSN
- 1471-2482 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2099767065
- Cited by
- 208
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 8.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Minimally invasive 'step-up approach' versus maximal necrosectomy in patients with acute necrotising pancreatitis (PANTER trial): design and rationale of a randomised controlled multicenter trial [ISRCTN13975868]. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1471-2482-6-6
- The paper
- Besselink, M. G., van Santvoort, H. C., Nieuwenhuijs, V. B., Boermeester, M. A., Bollen, T. L., Buskens, E., Dejong, C. H., van Eijck, C. H., van Goor, H., Hofker, S. S., Lameris, J. S., van Leeuwen, M. S., Ploeg, R. J., van Ramshorst, B., Schaapherder, A. F., Cuesta, M. A., Consten, E. C., Gouma, D. J., van der Harst, E., . . . members of the Dutch Acute Pancreatitis Study Group. (2006). Minimally invasive 'step-up approach' versus maximal necrosectomy in patients with acute necrotising pancreatitis (PANTER trial): design and rationale of a randomised controlled multicenter trial [ISRCTN13975868]. BMC Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2482-6-6
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.