ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2016
Effect of a paclitaxel-eluting metallic stent on rabbit esophagus.
Article in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Review of Self-Expanding Esophageal Stents for the Palliation Therapy of Inoperable Esophageal Malignancies.BioMed research international · 2019Review
- History of the Use of Esophageal Stent in Management of Dysphagia and Its Improvement Over the Years.Dysphagia · 2017Article
- The effect of paclitaxel-eluting covered metal stents versus covered metal stents in a rabbit esophageal squamous carcinoma model.PloS one · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of self-expanding metallic stents (SEMS) is the current treatment of choice for malignant gastrointestinal obstructions. A paclitaxel-eluting metallic SEMS (PEMS) may have an antitumor effect on esophageal tissue. PEMS with 10% paclitaxel or conventional SEMS were inserted into the lower esophagus of rabbits. Following the insertion of the stents for 1, 2, 4 and 6 weeks, the rabbits were sacrificed and the status of the stent insertion was examined, as well as any macroscopic or microscopic mucosal changes in the esophageal tissue. All the rabbits survived until death without any complications. No migration following stent insertion occurred. The number of cases with proximal obstruction increased in a time-dependent manner, and no significant difference was observed between the two groups. Gross histological examination showed similar tissue reaction to the stents at 1, 2 and 4 weeks, and inflammatory cell infiltrating was higher in the SEMS group at 1 and 2 weeks. However, inflammatory cell infiltration was markedly higher in the PEMS group at 4 and 6 weeks. Food-intake and weight were similar in the two groups. The results of the present study demonstrated that PEMS may serve as a safe alternative treatment strategy for esophageal obstruction. Furthermore, PEMS may inhibit the tumor growth of the esophageal wall through inflammatory infiltration and targeted drug delivery. A tumor model will be required in the future for evaluating the prognosis of patients with advanced esophageal carcinoma.
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.