Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32025817›Full record

ArticleSurgery today2020

Determining the difference in the efficacy and safety of self-expandable metallic stents as a bridge to surgery for obstructive colon cancer among patients in the CROSS 0 group and those in the CROSS 1 or 2 group: a pooled analysis of data from two Japanese prospective multicenter trials.

Takeshi Ohki, Shuntaro Yoshida, Masakazu Yamamoto, Hiroyuki Isayama, Tomonori Yamada, Takeaki Matsuzawa, Shuji Saito, Toshio Kuwai, Masafumi Tomita, Toshiyasu Shiratori and 4 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgery today, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

14 authors at 10 institutions in 2 countries.

Takeshi OhkiDepartment of Surgery, Institute of Gastroenterology, Tokyo Women's Medical University, 8-1 Kawada-cho, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 162-8666, Japan. ohki.takeshi@twmu.ac.jp.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6328-0754
Shuntaro YoshidaJapan Colonic Stent Safe Procedure Research Group, Tokyo, Japan.
Masakazu YamamotoDepartment of Surgery, Institute of Gastroenterology, Tokyo Women's Medical University, 8-1 Kawada-cho, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 162-8666, Japan.
Hiroyuki IsayamaJapan Colonic Stent Safe Procedure Research Group, Tokyo, Japan.
Tomonori YamadaJapan Colonic Stent Safe Procedure Research Group, Tokyo, Japan.
Takeaki MatsuzawaJapan Colonic Stent Safe Procedure Research Group, Tokyo, Japan.
Shuji SaitoJapan Colonic Stent Safe Procedure Research Group, Tokyo, Japan.
Toshio KuwaiJapan Colonic Stent Safe Procedure Research Group, Tokyo, Japan.
Masafumi TomitaJapan Colonic Stent Safe Procedure Research Group, Tokyo, Japan.
Toshiyasu ShiratoriJapan Colonic Stent Safe Procedure Research Group, Tokyo, Japan.
Mamoru ShimadaJapan Colonic Stent Safe Procedure Research Group, Tokyo, Japan.
Tomio HirakawaJapan Colonic Stent Safe Procedure Research Group, Tokyo, Japan.
Koichi KoizumiJapan Colonic Stent Safe Procedure Research Group, Tokyo, Japan.
Yoshihisa SaidaJapan Colonic Stent Safe Procedure Research Group, Tokyo, Japan.
Midorigaoka Hospital · JPTokyo Women's Medical University · JPJapanese Red Cross Nagoya Daini Hospital · JPJuntendo University · JPKameda Medical Center · JPKishiwada Tokushukai Hospital · JPNational Hospital Organization · JPThe University of Tokyo · JPToho University · JPTokyo Metropolitan Komagome Hospital · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study compared the feasibility and safety of endoscopic placement of self-expandable metallic stents (SEMSs) as a bridge to surgery (BTS) between patients with obstructive colorectal cancer (CRC) classified as ColoRectal Obstruction Scoring System (CROSS) 0 and those with CROSS 1 or 2.

methodsWe conducted a post hoc analysis of two prospective, observational, single-arm multicenter clinical trials and performed a pooled analysis of the data. In total, 336 consecutive patients with malignant colorectal obstruction underwent SEMS placement. The primary endpoint was clinical success, defined as resolution of symptoms and radiological findings within 24 h. Secondary endpoints were technical success and adverse events.

resultsHigh clinical (98.0% vs. 98.4%) and technical (96.7% vs. 97.8%) success rates were observed in both groups (CROSS 0 vs. CROSS 1 or 2). The adverse event rate was low. The mean stricture length was lower (3.8 ± 1.2 cm vs. 4.4 ± 1.8 cm) and laparoscopic surgery more common (56.7% vs 52.2%) in the CROSS 0 group than in the CROSS 1 and 2 group.

conclusionThis study was the first to compare the degree of stricture in different CROSS groups and demonstrated comparable results with respect to the short-term efficacy and safety of SEMS placement as a BTS for obstructive CRC in CROSS 0, 1, and 2 patients.

Indexed as

Data AnalysisSelf Expandable Metallic StentsColonic NeoplasmsEndoscopy, GastrointestinalFeasibility StudiesHumansIntestinal ObstructionLaparoscopySafetySeverity of Illness IndexTreatment OutcomeBridge to surgeryColorectal cancerColorectal obstructionPooled analysisSelf-expandable metallic stents

Identifiers

PMID32025817
PMCPMC7441084
OpenAlexW3004499238

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.