Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31040888›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy2019

Efficacy and safety of standard and anti-reflux self-expanding metal stent: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Sudha Pandit, Hrishikesh Samant, James Morris, Steven J Alexander

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05303298 (Evaluating Gastro-oesophageal Reflux After Palliative Stenting for Malignant Distal Oesophageal Obstruction Using Anti-Reflux Stents), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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.

NCT05303298 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Evaluating Gastro-oesophageal Reflux After Palliative Stenting for Malignant Distal Oesophageal Obstruction Using Anti-Reflux Stents: a Randomised Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of Cape TownRan2022 to 2025Enrolled72ConditionsEsophageal Cancer, Reflux, GastroesophagealArmsAnti-reflux oesophageal stent, Conventional oesophageal stent
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Best Practices in Esophageal, Gastroduodenal, and Colonic Stenting.GE Portuguese journal of gastroenterology · 2023
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. [Palliative endoscopy].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2022
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Palliative care for advanced gastric cancer.Expert review of anticancer therapy · 2020
    Review
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sudha PanditDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Louisiana State University Health Science Center, Shreveport, LA 71103, United States. spandi@lsuhsc.edu.
Hrishikesh SamantDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Louisiana State University Health Science Center, Shreveport, LA 71103, United States.
James MorrisDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Louisiana State University Health Science Center, Shreveport, LA 71103, United States.
Steven J AlexanderDepartment of Cell Biology and Physiology, Louisiana State University, School of Medicine, Shreveport, LA 71103, United States.
Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center Shreveport · USLouisiana State University in Shreveport · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSelf-expanding metal stents are the main palliative treatment modality for unresectable esophageal cancer. Gastroesophageal reflux is a common adverse outcome after placement of esophageal stent for cancer involving the gastroesophageal junction and the gastric cardia. Anti-reflux stents with valve have been designed to prevent the acid reflux. The superiority of anti-reflux stent over standard stent in preventing gastroesophageal reflux has not been established well. This study compares the anti-reflux stent and the standard stent in terms of their efficacy to prevent acid reflux.

aimTo compare the standard and the anti-reflux stents in terms of their efficacy, safety, and complications.

methodsThe meta-analysis included 8 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to compare pooled outcomes of total 395 patients. Primary outcomes include improvement in reflux symptoms and dysphagia score. Secondary outcomes include complications of stent migration, occlusion, and bleeding.

resultsA total of eight RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. Compared to the standard stent, the anti-reflux stent showed a trend towards reduction in the dysphagia score without reaching a statistical significance [Standardized mean difference (SMD): -0.33 (-0.71, 0.05);

conclusionTraditional self-expanding standard esophageal stent and anti-reflux stent with valve are similar in terms of outcomes and complications.

Indexed as

Anti-reflux stentEsophageal stentMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialSelf expanding metal stent

Identifiers

PMID31040888
PMCPMC6475701
OpenAlexW2939487012

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.