Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31006706›Full record

ReviewEndoscopic ultrasound

Lumen apposing metal stents in drainage of pancreatic walled-off necrosis, are they any better than plastic stents? A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies published since the revised Atlanta classification of pancreatic fluid collections.

Babu P Mohan, Mahendran Jayaraj, Ravishankar Asokkumar, Mohammed Shakhatreh, Parul Pahal, Suresh Ponnada, Udayakumar Navaneethan, Douglas G Adler

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Endoscopic ultrasound. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

8 authors.

Babu P MohanDepartment of Inpatient Medicine, University of Arizona, Banner University Medical Center, Tucson, Arizona, USA.
Mahendran JayarajDivision of Gastroenterology/Hepatology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, USA.
Ravishankar AsokkumarDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore.
Mohammed ShakhatrehDepartment of Hospital Medicine, Rapides Regional Medical Center, Alexandria, Louisiana, USA.
Parul PahalDepartment of Inpatient Medicine, University of Arizona, Banner University Medical Center, Tucson, Arizona, USA.
Suresh PonnadaDepartment of Hospital Medicine, Carilion Roanoke Memorial Hospital, Roanoke, Virginia, USA.
Udayakumar NavaneethanCenter for Interventional Endoscopy, Florida Hospital, Orlando, Florida, USA.
Douglas G AdlerDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) are increasingly being used in the drainage of pancreatic walled-off necrosis (WON). Best choice of stent is subject to argument, and studies are varied in the reported outcomes between LAMS and plastic stents (PS) to this end. We conducted a comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases and conference proceedings including PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases (earliest inception through July 2018) to identify studies that reported on the use of LAMS and PS in WON drainage. Studies published since the release of the revised Atlanta classification for pancreatic fluid collections (2014 to current) were included in the analysis. The outcomes were to estimate and compare the pooled rates of clinical success, and adverse-events. A total of 9 studies (737 patients) for LAMS and 6 studies (527 patients) for PS were included in the analysis. The pooled rate of clinical-success with LAMS was 88.5% (95% CI 82.5-92.6, I

Indexed as

Lumen apposing metal stentspancreaticplastic stentswalled-off necrosis

Identifiers

PMID31006706
PMCPMC6482598

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.