Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2022
Enteral extended biliary stents versus conventional plastic biliary stents for the treatment of extrahepatic malignant biliary obstruction: a single-center prospective randomized controlled study.
Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2022. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical effect of percutaneous hepatic puncture biliary drainage combined with metal stent implantation in the treatment of malignant obstructive jaundice.BMC surgery · 2025Article
- Endoclip papillaplasty (ECPP) versus limited EST plus EPLBD for a decrease in recurrent choledocholithiasis: a prospective cohort study.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
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
BACKGROUND AND
aimsThe main limitation of plastic stents is the relatively short stent patency due to occlusion. We designed enteral extended biliary stents with lengths of 26 cm (EEBS-26 cm) and 30 cm (EEBS-30 cm) to prolong stent patency. This study aimed to compare patency among EEBS-26 cm, EEBS-30 cm, and conventional plastic biliary stent (CPBS).
methodsA single-center prospective randomized controlled study was conducted. Eligible patients were randomized into the EEBS-26 cm, EEBS-30 cm, and CPBS groups, respectively. All patients were followed up every 3 months until stent occlusion, patient death, or at 12-month follow-up. The primary outcome was stent patency. The secondary outcomes included stent occlusion rate, patient survival, mortality, the rate of technical success, and adverse events.
resultsTotally 117 patients were randomized into the three groups. There were no significant differences among the three groups in technical success rate, hospital stay, mortality, patient survival, and adverse events (P = 1.000, 0.553, 0.965, 0.302, and 0.427, respectively). Median stent patency durations in the EEBS-26 cm, EEBS-30 cm, and CPBS groups were 156.0 (95% CI 81.6-230.4) days, 81.0 (95% CI 67.9-94.1) days, and 68.0 (95% CI 20.0-116.0) days, respectively (P = 0.002). The EEBS-26 cm group had longer stent patency compared with the CPBS (P = 0.007) and EEBS-30 cm (P < 0.001) groups. The EEBS-26 cm group had lower stent occlusion rates compared with the other groups at 6 months (48.1% vs. 90.5% vs. 82.8%, P = 0.001) and 9 months (75.0% vs. 100.0% vs. 92.9%, P = 0.022).
conclusionEEBS-26 cm has prolonged stent patency and is safe and effective for the alleviation of unresectable extrahepatic malignant biliary 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.