Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37032113›Full record

ArticleClinical endoscopy2023

Covered self-expandable metallic stents versus plastic stents for endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy in patients with malignant biliary obstruction.

Taro Shibuki, Kei Okumura, Masanari Sekine, Ikuhiro Kobori, Aki Miyagaki, Yoshihiro Sasaki, Yuichi Takano, Yusuke Hashimoto

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

Article in Clinical endoscopy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy: practical tips and tricks.VideoGIE : an official video journal of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · 2024
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Taro ShibukiDepartment of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Chiba, Japan.
Kei OkumuraDepartment of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Chiba, Japan.
Masanari SekineDepartment of Gastroenterology, Jichi Medical University Saitama Medical Center, Saitama, Japan.
Ikuhiro KoboriDepartment of Gastroenterology, Dokkyo Medical University Saitama Medical Center, Saitama, Japan.
Aki MiyagakiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Toyooka Hospital, Hyogo, Japan.
Yoshihiro SasakiDepartment of Gastroenterology, National Organization Disaster Medical Center, Tokyo, Japan.
Yuichi TakanoDepartment of Gastroenterology, Fujigaoka Hospital, Showa University, Kanagawa, Japan.
Yusuke HashimotoDepartment of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Chiba, Japan.
National Cancer Center Hospital East · JPJichi Medical University · JPNational Disaster Medical Center · JPShowa University Fujigaoka Hospital · JPSocial Insurance Saitama Chuo Hospital · JPToyooka Hospital · JPUniversity of Florida · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

aimsCovered self-expandable metallic stents (cSEMS) have become popular for endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy with transmural stenting (EUS-HGS). We compared the time to recurrent biliary obstruction (TRBO), complications, and reintervention rates between EUS-HGS using plastic stent (PS) and cSEMS in patients with unresectable malignancies at multicenter institutions in Japan.

methodsPatients with unresectable malignant biliary obstruction who underwent EUS-HGS between April 2015 and July 2020 at any of the six participating facilities were enrolled. Primary endpoint: TRBO; secondary endpoints: rate of complications other than recurrent biliary obstruction and technical success rate of reintervention were evaluated.

resultsPS and cSEMS were used for EUS-HGS in 109 and 43 patients, respectively. The TRBO was significantly longer in the cSEMS group than in the PS group (646 vs. 202 days). Multivariate analysis identified two independent factors associated with a favorable TRBO: combined EUS-guided antegrade stenting with EUS-HGS and the use of cSEMS. No significant difference was observed in the rate of complications other than recurrent biliary obstruction between the two groups. The technical success rate of reintervention was 85.7% for PS and 100% for cSEMS (p=0.309).

conclusioncSEMS might be a better option for EUS-HGS in patients with unresectable malignancies, given the longer TRBO.

Indexed as

Bile duct obstructionBiliary fistulaDrainageEndoscopic ultrasonography

Identifiers

PMID37032113
PMCPMC10665611
OpenAlexW4362626579

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.