ArticleMedicine2020
Fully covered self-expandable metal stent with an anti-migration system vs plastic stent for distal biliary obstruction caused by borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: A protocol for systematic review.
Article in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimBiliary obstruction can impair the effectiveness of neo-adjuvant chemotherapy. This study was designed to compare biliary stenting with covered self-expandable metal stents (FCSEMS) and plastic stents (PS) in patients with biliary obstruction caused by borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC) who were undergoing neo-adjuvant chemotherapy during preoperative biliary drainage.
methodsThis single-center, comparative, randomized, superiority study was designed to compare FCSEMS with PS for drainage of biliary obstruction of BRPC. Twenty two eligible patients providing informed consent will be randomized 1:1 by computer to either FCSEMS or PS for endoscopic retrograde biliary drainage (ERBD). All subsequent clinical interventions, including crossover to alternative procedures, will be at the discretion of the treating physician based on standard clinical care. The primary outcomes will be the rates and causes of stent dysfunction during preoperative biliary drainage. Other outcomes include time required for ERBD, adverse events related to ERBD, period from ERBD to surgery, percentage of patients able to undergo surgery, operation time, intraoperative bleeding volume, postoperative adverse events, and postoperative hospitalization. Subjects, treating clinicians, and outcome assessors will not be blinded to assignment. DISCUSSION: This study is intended to determine whether FCSEMS or PS is the better biliary stent for ERBD for management of patients with biliary obstruction of BRPC, a common clinical dilemma that has not yet been investigated in randomized trials. TRIALS REGISTRATION: UMIN-CTR, Identifier: UMIN000030473. Registered July 10, 2017, Wakayama Medical University Hospital.
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.