Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30341649›Full record

SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2019

Is bridge to surgery stenting a safe alternative to emergency surgery in malignant colonic obstruction: a meta-analysis of randomized control trials.

Chi Chung Foo, Samuel Ho Ting Poon, Rosemaire Hon Yiu Chiu, Wai Yiu Lam, Lam Chi Cheung, Wai Lun Law

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 101 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Review
  19. Best Practices in Esophageal, Gastroduodenal, and Colonic Stenting.GE Portuguese journal of gastroenterology · 2023
    Review
  20. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Chi Chung Foo *Department of Surgery, University of Hong Kong, Queen Mary Hospital, 102 Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong, China. ccfoo@hku.hk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8849-6597
Samuel Ho Ting Poon *Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Rosemaire Hon Yiu ChiuLi Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Wai Yiu LamLi Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Lam Chi CheungLi Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Wai Lun LawDepartment of Surgery, University of Hong Kong, Queen Mary Hospital, 102 Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong, China.
University of Hong Kong · HKQueen Mary Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite studies showing superior results in terms of reduced stoma rate and higher primary anastomosis rate, the safety of bridge to surgery stenting (BTS stent) for left-sided malignant colonic obstruction, especially in oncological terms, remains a concern.

aimThe aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate whether BTS stent is a safe alternative to emergency surgery (EmS).

methodsRandomized control trials (RCTs) comparing BTS stent and EmS for left-sided colonic obstruction caused by primary cancer of the colon, up to Sep 2018, were retrieved from the Pubmed, Embase database, clinical trials registry of U. S. National Library of Medicine and BMJ and Google Search.

resultsThere were seven eligible RCTs, involving a total of 448 patients. Compared to EmS, BTS stent had a significantly lower risk of overall complications (RR = 0.605; 95% CI 0.382-0.958; p = 0.032). However, the overall recurrence rate was higher in the BTS stent group (37.0% vs. 25.9%; RR = 1.425; 95% CI 1.002-2.028; p = 0.049). BTS stent significantly increased the risk of systemic recurrence (RR = 1.627; 95% CI 1.009-2.621; p = 0.046). This did not translate into a significant difference in terms of 3-year disease-free survival or 3-year overall survival.

conclusionBTS stent is associated with a lower rate of overall morbidities than EmS. However, BTS stent was associated with a greater chance of recurrence, especially systemic recurrence. Clinicians ought to be aware of the pros and cons of different interventions and tailor treatments for patients suffering from left-sided obstructing cancer of the colon.

Indexed as

Anastomosis, SurgicalStentsColorectal NeoplasmsDisease-Free SurvivalHumansIntestinal ObstructionRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSurvival AnalysisBridge to surgeryColon obstructionColorectal cancerSEMSStent

Identifiers

PMID30341649
OpenAlexW2896095428

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.