ArticleScientific reports2020
Comparison of double-layer large-diameter and conventional small-diameter plastic stents for preoperative biliary drainage in resectable distal malignant biliary obstruction.
Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of a plastic stent (PS) in resectable patients with distal malignant biliary obstruction (DMBO) is uncommon due to the high failure rate of this method. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of a double-layer, large-diameter PS as a bridge to surgery compared with a conventional PS. This was a single-center retrospective cohort study. In total, 129 consecutive patients with DMBO underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy between January 2011 and March 2018. Fifty-five patients who preoperatively underwent plastic biliary drainage were enrolled. The patients were divided into two groups based on stent diameter: a large-diameter plastic stent (LPS) group and a small-diameter plastic stent (SPS) group. The primary endpoint was the stent patency period, and the secondary endpoint was the medical cost. Thirty-six patients received SPSs; 19 patients received LPSs. The patency rate until surgery was significantly higher in the LPS group than in the SPS group (89.5% vs. 41.7%, P = 0.0006). Multivariate analysis revealed that LPS use was significantly associated with sufficient stent patency. The total cost of LPS use was significantly lower than that of SPS use. LPSs had longer patency and reduced medical costs than SPSs. LPSs may be suitable for patients with DMBO who are scheduled to undergo surgery.
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.