SynthesisBMC cancer2020
Comparison of fully-covered vs partially covered self-expanding metallic stents for palliative treatment of inoperable esophageal malignancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.
- Treatment of malignant esophageal stricture or esophageal leakage with a Niti-S™ covered anti-reflux stent is safe and efficient.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2026Article
- Exploring the genetic link between type 2 diabetes and its complications and esophageal malignancy: A Mendelian randomization study.Medicine · 2026Article
- Stents and Emerging Alternatives in Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Comprehensive Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Successful Treatment of an Esophago-Tracheobronchial Fistula Using Double Stenting to Correct Initial Stent Migration: A Case Report and Literature Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Safety and efficacy of conventional compared to segmented esophageal fully covered self-expanding metal stents: a retrospective multicenter case-control study.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- How to preserve the native or reconstructed esophagus after perforations or postoperative leaks: A multidisciplinary 15-year experience.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2024Article
- A Successful Treatment of Broncho-Esophageal Fistula with Esophageal Stenting Using Direct Endoscopic Visualization.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- Spontaneous Endoscopic Esophageal Stent Fracture Post-endoscopic Placement: A Case Report.Cureus · 2023Article
- Delayed bronchial obstruction following esophageal stent placement: A case report and review of the literature.Radiology case reports · 2023Article
- Best Practices in Esophageal, Gastroduodenal, and Colonic Stenting.GE Portuguese journal of gastroenterology · 2023Review
- Laparogastroscopy-A Transgastric Laparoscopic Approach for Malignant Esophageal Stenosis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Recent Updates in Gastrointestinal Stent Placement from the Esophagus to the Colon: A Radiological Perspective.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2022Review
- Optimal Management of Dysphagia in Patients with Inoperable Esophageal Cancer: Current Perspectives.Cancer management and research · 2022Review
- Efficacy and safety of self-expanding metal stents in patients with inoperable esophageal cancer: a real-life study.Therapeutic advances in gastrointestinal endoscopyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to compare clinical outcomes following placement of fully covered self-expanding metallic stents (FCSEMS) vs partially covered self-expanding metallic stents (PCSEMS) for palliative treatment of inoperable esophageal cancer.
methodsWe searched PubMed, ScienceDirect, Embase, and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) databases from inception up to 10th July 2019. Studies comparing clinical outcomes with FCSEMS vs PCSEMS in patients with inoperable esophageal cancer requiring palliative treatment for dysphagia were included.
resultsFive studies were included in the review. Two hundred twenty-nine patients received FCSEMS while 313 patients received PCSEMS in the five studies. There was no difference in the rates of stent migration between FCSEMS and PCSEMS (Odds ratio [OR] 0.63, 95%CI 0.37-1.08, P = 0.09; I
conclusionOur results indicate that there is no difference in stent migration, and stent obstruction, with FCSEMS or PCSEMS when used for palliative treatment of esophageal malignancy.
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.