SynthesisDigestive diseases and sciences2022
Endoscopic Bilateral Stent-in-Stent Versus Stent-by-Stent Deployment in Advanced Malignant Hilar Obstruction: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety and efficacy of side-by-side versus stent-in-stent stenting for malignant hilar biliary obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Case of endoscopic bilateral stent-in-stent placement using long metallic stents for pancreatic cancer and plexus invasion.Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2022Article
- [A Recent Update on Endoscopic Drainage of Advanced Malignant Hilar Obstruction].The Korean journal of gastroenterology = Taehan Sohwagi Hakhoe chi · 2021Review
- The role of endoscopy in malignant hilar obstruction.Annals of gastroenterologyReview
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimThere is no clear data to compare the effectiveness and safety of bilateral stent-in-stent (SIS) or stent-by-stent (SBS) deployment for advanced malignant hilar obstruction (MHO). This meta-analysis was done to investigate clinical outcomes of these deployment methods.
methodsWe did a literature search to identify studies that reported the clinical outcomes of bilateral metal stents in patients with advanced MHO. Weighed pooled rates (WPR) along with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were calculated in order to compare outcomes including technical and clinical success, adverse events, and stent occlusion between the two groups. We conducted a meta-analysis using a random-effects model.
resultsFive comparative studies with 250 patients, and 20 single-arm studies for the SIS or SBS method were eligible for the meta-analysis and systematic review. The bilateral SIS deployment had a significantly higher technical success rate than did SBS deployment (OR 6.43; 95% CI 1.08-38.09). There was no difference in the clinical success (OR 1.23; 95% CI 0.45-3.38), overall adverse events rates (OR 0.42; 95% CI 0.15-1.18), or overall occlusion rate (OR 1.55; 95% CI 0.89-2.70). As a single-armed group, WPR of technical success of the SIS and SBS groups was 96.4% and 89.6%, respectively. Clinical success was 97.5% and 98.3%. Overall, adverse events were 35.9% and 22.6%. Occlusion rates were 27.7% and 37.7%.
conclusionsAlthough there was a lack of quality data and heterogeneity, bilateral SIS deployment had a higher technical feasibility than did the SBS method in patients with advanced MHO, without differences in terms of clinical success, adverse events, or occlusion rates.
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.