ArticleNutrients2020
Comparison between Percutaneous Gastrostomy and Self-Expandable Metal Stent Insertion for the Treatment of Malignant Esophageal Obstruction, after Propensity Score Matching.
Article in Nutrients, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Esophageal cancer practice guidelines 2022 edited by the Japan Esophageal Society: part 2.Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 2023Article
- Endoscopic Stenting for Malignant Dysphagia in Patients with Esophageal Cancer.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Review
- Nutritional Status and the Outcomes of Endoscopic Stenting in Benign and Malignant Diseases of Esophagus.Nutrients · 2023Article
- Gastrostomy tubes: Fundamentals, periprocedural considerations, and best practices.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2022Review
- [Endoscopic Management of Dysphagia].The Korean journal of gastroenterology = Taehan Sohwagi Hakhoe chi · 2021Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe outcomes of the two procedures; self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) insertion and percutaneous gastrostomy (PG) feeding procedures, used in patients with malignant esophageal obstruction, are still controversial. We aimed to compare the outcomes between the two procedures, following propensity score (PS) matching.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 568 esophageal cancer patients who underwent SEMS insertion (stent group) or PG (gastrostomy group) at the Samsung Medical Center between January 1996 and December 2018. Procedures for reasons other than malignant obstruction were excluded. We analyzed the datasets after PS matching. Primary outcomes were the post-procedural nutritional status, and need for additional intervention (AI). The secondary outcome was overall survival (OS).
resultsIn a matched cohort, the gastrostomy group showed less decrease in albumin level after the procedure (-0.15 ± 0.57 vs. stent group; 0.41 ± 0.59,
conclusionsPG tends to provide better post-procedure nutritional status than SEMS insertion in patients with malignant esophageal obstruction.
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.