Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35565209›Full record

ReviewCancers2022

Comparison of Intraductal RFA Plus Stent versus Stent-Only Treatment for Unresectable Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

David M de Jong, Jeska A Fritzsche, Amber S Audhoe, Suzanne S L Yi, Marco J Bruno, Rogier P Voermans, Lydi M J W van Driel

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Reply to Chandrasekhara and Aggarwal.Endoscopy international open · 2024
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

David M de JongDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Doctor Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5068-8227
Jeska A FritzscheDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Amber S AudhoeDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Doctor Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Suzanne S L YiDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Doctor Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Marco J BrunoDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Doctor Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Rogier P VoermansDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9969-019X
Lydi M J W van DrielDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Doctor Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Erasmus MC Cancer Institute · NLAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOne of the cornerstones of palliative treatment for unresectable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma is biliary stent placement in order to restore biliary drainage. In this review, the potential added value of RFA with stent placement in comparison to stent placement alone in patients with unresectable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma is analyzed.

methodsWe performed a comprehensive online search for relevant articles in November 2021 (PROSPERO ID: CRD42021288180). The primary endpoint was difference in overall survival. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, stent patency and complications. Only studies comparing survival after RFA + stent placement with stent placement alone were included in the meta-analysis. Non-comparative studies or comparative studies describing stent patency only were included in the systematic review.

resultsA total of nine studies, including 217 patients with pCCA who underwent RFA + stent placement and 294 patients who underwent stent-only treatment, met the inclusion criteria for the primary endpoint analysis. Direct comparison between the two treatment groups showed a significantly longer overall survival for RFA + stent treatment, with a pooled HR of 0.65 [95% CI, 0.50-0.84, I

conclusionsRFA + stent placement displays promising potential to prolong survival. However, further research incorporating confounding factors like use of palliative chemotherapy is necessary in order to validate these findings.

Indexed as

biliary drainageendoscopic stentpercutaneous stentradiofrequency ablationunresectable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma

Identifiers

PMID35565209
PMCPMC9099890
OpenAlexW4224259469

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.