Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36992630›Full record

SynthesisDiagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey)2023

Outcomes of two types of iodine-125 seed delivery with metal stents in treating malignant biliary obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Xiaobo Fu, Han Qi, Zhenkang Qiu, Weiwei Jiang, Zixiong Chen, Fei Gao

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Investigation into the efficiency and prognostic elements of CT-guided ¹²⁵I particle implantation for liver cancer.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Xiaobo FuDepartment of Minimally Invasive & Interventional Radiology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center and Sun Yat-sen University State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, and Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.ORCID 0000-0003-4764-0147
Han QiDepartment of Minimally Invasive & Interventional Radiology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center and Sun Yat-sen University State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, and Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.ORCID 0000-0002-2803-5059
Zhenkang QiuDepartment of Minimally Invasive & Interventional Radiology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center and Sun Yat-sen University State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, and Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.ORCID 0000-0001-8727-5178
Weiwei JiangDepartment of Minimally Invasive & Interventional Radiology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center and Sun Yat-sen University State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, and Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.ORCID 0000-0002-1500-9759
Zixiong ChenDepartment of Minimally Invasive & Interventional Radiology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center and Sun Yat-sen University State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, and Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.ORCID 0000-0001-7151-8024
Fei GaoDepartment of Minimally Invasive & Interventional Radiology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center and Sun Yat-sen University State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, and Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.ORCID 0000-0002-4086-2575
Sun Yat-sen University · CNSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center · CNState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo conduct a meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of two types of iodine-125 (I-125) seed delivery with metal stents (the study group) versus conventional metal stents (the control group) in patients with malignant biliary obstruction (MBO).

methodsOur team systematically searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for relevant studies published from January 2012 up to July 2021. Survival time and stent dysfunction were the primary measured outcomes. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to the type of I-125 seed delivery.

resultsEleven studies, including 1057 patients in total, were pooled for stent dysfunction. The study group showed a lower risk of stent dysfunction than the control group [odds ratio (OR): 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46-0.81,

conclusionThe delivery of I-125 with metal stents may be considered a preferable technique for MBO.

Indexed as

CholestasisIodine RadioisotopesHumansStentsTreatment OutcomeIodine-125Iodine Radioisotopesbiliary stentiodine-125 seedMalignant biliary obstructionmeta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID36992630
PMCPMC10679621
OpenAlexW4315780286

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.