Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26361409›Full record

ArticleChinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu2015

Comparison of postoperative complications between internal and external pancreatic duct stenting during pancreaticoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis.

Fa-Yong Ke, Xiang-Song Wu, Yong Zhang, Hong-Cheng Zhang, Ming-Zhe Weng, Ying-Bin Liu, Christopher Wolfgang, Wei Gong

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Chinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Fa-Yong Ke1 Department of General Surgery, Xinhua Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200092, China ; 2 Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Xiang-Song Wu1 Department of General Surgery, Xinhua Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200092, China ; 2 Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Yong Zhang1 Department of General Surgery, Xinhua Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200092, China ; 2 Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Hong-Cheng Zhang1 Department of General Surgery, Xinhua Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200092, China ; 2 Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Ming-Zhe Weng1 Department of General Surgery, Xinhua Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200092, China ; 2 Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Ying-Bin Liu1 Department of General Surgery, Xinhua Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200092, China ; 2 Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Christopher Wolfgang1 Department of General Surgery, Xinhua Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200092, China ; 2 Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Wei Gong1 Department of General Surgery, Xinhua Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200092, China ; 2 Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Johns Hopkins University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTwo types of pancreatic duct stents are used to improve postoperative outcomes of pancreatic anastomosis. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate and compare the postoperative outcomes of patients with internal or external stenting during pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD).

methodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases until the end of December, 2014. Studies comparing outcomes of external vs. internal stent placement in PD were eligible for inclusion. Included literature was extracted and assessed by two independent reviewers.

resultsSeven articles were identified for inclusion: three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and four observational clinical studies (OCS). The meta-analyses revealed that use of external stents had advantage on reducing the incidences of pancreatic fistula (PF) in total [odds ratio (OR) =0.69; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.48-0.99; P=0.04], PF in soft pancreas (OR =0.30; 95% CI, 0.16-0.56; P=0.0002) and delayed gastric emptying (DGE) (OR =0.58; 95% CI, 0.38-0.89; P=0.01) compared with internal stents. There were no significant differences in other postoperative outcomes between two stenting methods, including postoperative morbidity (OR =0.93; 95% CI, 0.39-2.23; P=0.88), overall mortality (OR =0.70; 95% CI, 0.22-2.25; P=0.55), and intra-abdominal collections (OR =0.67; 95% CI, 0.26-1.71; P=0.40).

conclusionsBased upon this meta-analysis, the use of external pancreatic stents might have potential benefit in reducing the incidence of PF and DGE. Due to the limited number of original studies, more RCTs are needed to further support our result and clarify the issue.

Indexed as

meta-analysisPancreatic duct stentpancreaticoduodenectomy (PD)

Identifiers

PMID26361409
PMCPMC4560740
OpenAlexW1730167140

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.