ArticleSurgical endoscopy2022
Comparing the 14-mm uncovered and 10-mm covered metal stents in patients with distal biliary obstruction caused by unresectable pancreatic cancer: a multicenter retrospective study.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of Self-Expandable Metallic Stent Characteristics Associated with Longer Patency in Patients with Unresectable Malignant Distal Biliary Obstruction: A Multicenter Retrospective Study.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2026Article
- Clinical Outcomes and Complications of Endoscopic Biliary Stenting for Malignant Distal Biliary Obstruction in Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Endoscopic biliary drainage for distal bile duct obstruction due to pancreatic cancer.Clinical endoscopy · 2025Review
- Potential of 6-mm-diameter fully covered self-expandable metal stents for unresectable malignant distal biliary obstruction: a propensity score-matched study.Clinical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Assessment of safety and patency of 7-mm covered metal stents for preoperative biliary drainage in pancreatic cancer: Prospective multicenter study.Endoscopy international open · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndoscopic biliary drainage using metal stent (MSs) is an established palliative treatment for patients with unresectable malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO). However, a major drawback of MS is recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO). Uncovered MSs with a diameter of 14 mm (UMS-14) were developed to overcome this. We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of UMS-14 with those of conventional covered MSs having a diameter of 10 mm (CMS-10).
methodsConsecutive patients with MDBO caused by unresectable pancreatic cancer, who underwent UMS-14 or CMS-10 placement at two tertiary-care centers, were retrospectively examined according to the Tokyo Criteria 2014.
resultsTwo hundred and thirty-eight patients who underwent UMS-14 (the UMS-14 group, n = 80) or CMS-10 (the CMS-10 group, n = 158) over a 62-month period were included. The technical and clinical success rates were similar between the two groups. RBO occurred in 20 (25%) and 59 (37%) patients of the UMS-14 and CMS-10 groups, respectively (p = 0.06). Median time till RBO was significantly longer in the UMS-14 group than in the CMS-10 group (not reached vs. 290 days, p = 0.04). Multivariate analysis revealed that CMS-10 placement was an independent risk factor for RBO (hazard ratio: 1.66, 95% confidence interval: 1.00-2.76). The incidence of early complications, including pancreatitis, and the overall survival (UMS-14 vs. CMS-10: 169 vs. 167 days, p = 0.83) were comparable between the two groups.
conclusionsUMS-14 stents were safe and effective for treating patients with MDBO secondary to unresectable pancreatic cancer. The insertion of UMS-14 is recommended, because it is less likely to get occluded as compared to CMS-10.
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.