Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32352679›Full record

SynthesisClinical and translational gastroenterology2020

Double Stenting for Malignant Biliary and Duodenal Obstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Anna Fábián, Renáta Bor, Noémi Gede, Péter Bacsur, Dániel Pécsi, Péter Hegyi, Barbara Tóth, Zsolt Szakács, Áron Vincze, István Ruzsics and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical and translational gastroenterology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Best Practices in Esophageal, Gastroduodenal, and Colonic Stenting.GE Portuguese journal of gastroenterology · 2023
    Review
  3. [Palliative endoscopy].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2022
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. 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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Anna FábiánFirst Department of Medicine, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary.
Renáta BorFirst Department of Medicine, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary.
Noémi GedeInstitute for Translational Medicine, Medical School, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Péter BacsurFirst Department of Medicine, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary.
Dániel PécsiInstitute for Translational Medicine, Medical School, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Péter HegyiInstitute for Translational Medicine, Medical School, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Barbara TóthDepartment of Pharmacognosy, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary.
Zsolt SzakácsInstitute for Translational Medicine, Medical School, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Áron VinczeDivision of Gastroenterology, First Department of Medicine, Medical School, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
István RuzsicsFirst Department of Medicine, Department of Pulmonology, Medical School, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Zoltán RakonczayDepartment of Pathophysiology, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary.
Bálint ErőssInstitute for Translational Medicine, Medical School, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Róbert SeppSecond Department of Internal Medicine and Cardiology Center, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary.
Zoltán SzepesFirst Department of Medicine, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary.
University of Pecs · HUUniversity of Szeged · HU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionData about the efficacy of palliative double stenting for malignant duodenal and biliary obstruction are limited.

methodsA systematic literature search was performed to assess the feasibility and optimal method of double stenting for malignant duodenobiliary obstruction compared with surgical double bypass in terms of technical and clinical success, adverse events, reinterventions, and survival. Event rates with 95% confidence intervals were calculated.

resultsSeventy-two retrospective and 8 prospective studies published until July 2018 were included. Technical and clinical success rates of double stenting were 97% (95%-99%) and 92% (89%-95%), respectively. Clinical success of endoscopic biliary stenting was higher than that of surgery (97% [94%-99%] vs 86% [78%-92%]). Double stenting was associated with less adverse events (13% [8%-19%] vs 28% [19%-38%]) but more frequent need for reintervention (21% [16%-27%] vs 10% [4%-19%]) than double bypass. No significant difference was found between technical and clinical success and reintervention rate of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), percutaneous transhepatic drainage, and endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage. ERCP was associated with the least adverse events (3% [1%-6%]), followed by percutaneous transhepatic drainage (10% [0%-37%]) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (23% [15%-33%]). DISCUSSION: Substantially high technical and clinical success can be achieved with double stenting. Based on the adverse event profile, ERCP can be recommended as the first choice for biliary stenting as part of double stenting, if feasible. Prospective comparative studies with well-defined outcomes and cohorts are needed.

Indexed as

Bile Duct NeoplasmsCholestasisDrainageDuodenal NeoplasmsDuodenal ObstructionEndoscopy, Digestive SystemFeasibility StudiesHumansNeoplasm InvasivenessPalliative CarePancreatic NeoplasmsPostoperative ComplicationsReoperationStentsStomach NeoplasmsTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID32352679
PMCPMC7263659
OpenAlexW3016506310

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.