ReviewCurrent treatment options in gastroenterology2016
Update on Enteral Stents.
Review in Current treatment options in gastroenterology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endoscopic treatment of gastrointestinal perforations and leaks: Why, when, and how?World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2026Review
- Endoscopic management for gastrointestinal leaks, perforations, and fistulae: Technical tips and outcomes.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2025Review
- Technical Review on Endoscopic Treatment Devices for Management of Upper Gastrointestinal Postsurgical Leaks.Gastroenterology research and practice · 2023Review
- Endoscopic management of gastrointestinal leaks and fistulae: What option do we have?World journal of gastroenterology · 2020Review
- Endoscopic stenting in colorectal cancer.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2019Review
- Anastomotic Strictures after Esophageal Atresia Repair: Incidence, Investigations, and Management, Including Treatment of Refractory and Recurrent Strictures.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2017Review
- Self-Expanding Biodegradable Stents for Postoperative Upper Gastrointestinal Issues.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic SurgeonsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
opinion statementThe recent advances in enteral stents design and composition introduced novel usage and indications, heading to a continuous addition of prostheses application in clinical practice. Since the first use to palliate malignant diseases, improving patient's quality of life, in the last decades we assisted to a large spread, often becoming a first choice treatment in GI disorders. Indeed, the clinical indication of gastrointestinal stents includes endoscopic treatment of fistula and leaks besides the well-established role of restoring lumen patency in benign and malignant conditions. Several different kind of stents have been developed, each one with its own characteristics and benefits, including self-expandable plastic and metal stents, available as uncovered, partially covered, and fully covered as well as biodegradable stents. Recently, new drug-eluting stents, working both as palliative treatment and as local chemotherapy, are under evaluation. This review aims to critically evaluate the most recently published literature about enteral stents and to address endoscopists' choice for a better patient management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.