Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2021
Comparison of different types of covered self-expandable metal stents for malignant colorectal obstruction.
Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bridging to surgery versus palliation in malignant colorectal obstruction: complication risks and mediation by clinical success.Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- Management of obstructed colorectal carcinoma in an emergency setting: An update.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStent migration is one of the main drawbacks of covered self-expandable metal stent (SEMSs), occurring in up to 40% of malignant colorectal obstruction management cases. Various types of covered SEMSs have been developed to reduce this risk. We aimed to compare the effectiveness and complication rates of the flare-type covered SEMS (Flare) with those of the double-layered covered SEMS (ComVi).
methodsWe performed a prospective, randomized study in four tertiary referral centers between July 2016 and April 2018. Patients with malignant colorectal obstruction were eligible for the study. The primary outcome was migration rate as observed within the first month. Rates of technical success, clinical success, and complications within the first month were also assessed.
resultsA total of 60 patients were included (mean age, 70.5 ± 12.5 years; male, 31 [51.7%]). Flare and ComVi stents were applied in 30 patients each. The Flare and ComVi groups showed comparable technical success rates (90% [27/30] vs. 96.7% [29/30], p = 0.605) and clinical success rates (85.2% [23/27] vs. 75.9% [22/29], p = 0.589). Migration occurred in three (11.1%) and four (13.8%) cases in the Flare and ComVi groups, respectively, without significant difference (p = 0.99), and the risk of other complications, including perforation and re-obstruction, did not differ between the two groups.
conclusionsOur study indicates that both flare-shape and double-layered covered SEMSs are equally effective options for the management of malignant colorectal obstruction with low migration rates when compared with previously reported migration risk of covered SEMS.
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.