Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37522554›Full record

Trial reportDigestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society2024

Partially covered versus uncovered pyloro-duodenal stents for unresectable malignant gastric outlet obstruction: Randomized controlled study.

Anthony Yuen Bun Teoh, Sundeep Lakhtakia, Damien Meng Yew Tan, Stefano Francesco Crinò, Vinay Dhir, Rastislav Kunda, Tiing Leong Ang, Khek Yu Ho, Maridi Aerts, Sana Fathima Memon and 10 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

20 authors at 9 institutions in 8 countries.

Anthony Yuen Bun TeohDepartment of Surgery, Prince of Wales Hospital, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Sundeep LakhtakiaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Asian Institute of Gastroenterology, Hyderabad, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7562-8060
Damien Meng Yew TanDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Singapore General Hospital and Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore City, Singapore.
Stefano Francesco CrinòGastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Pancreas Institute, University Hospital of Verona, Verona, Italy.
Vinay DhirInstitute of Digestive and Liver Care, SL Raheja Hospital, Mumbai, India.
Rastislav KundaDepartment of Surgical Gastroenterology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5632-2402
Tiing Leong AngDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Changi General Hospital, Singapore City, Singapore.
Khek Yu HoDepartment of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore City, Singapore.
Maridi AertsDepartment of Gastroenterology-Hepatology, Hepatopancreatobiliary Center, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
Sana Fathima MemonDepartment of Gastroenterology, Asian Institute of Gastroenterology, Hyderabad, India.
Shannon Melissa ChanDepartment of Surgery, Prince of Wales Hospital, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6280-4176
Philip Wai Yan ChiuDepartment of Surgery, Prince of Wales Hospital, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9292-112X
Maria Cristina Conti BellocchiGastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Pancreas Institute, University Hospital of Verona, Verona, Italy.
Nouredin MessaoudiDepartment of Surgery, Hepatopancreatobiliary Center, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
Stephen Ka Kei NgDepartment of Surgery, Prince of Wales Hospital, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Hon Chi YipDepartment of Surgery, Prince of Wales Hospital, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1041-9668
Armando GabbrielliGastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Pancreas Institute, University Hospital of Verona, Verona, Italy.
Christopher Jen Lock KhorDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Singapore General Hospital and Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore City, Singapore.
Mohan RamchandaniDepartment of Gastroenterology, Asian Institute of Gastroenterology, Hyderabad, India.
Enders Kwok Wai NgDepartment of Surgery, Prince of Wales Hospital, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Chinese University of Hong Kong · HKAsian Institute of Gastroenterology · INUniversity of Verona · ITSingapore General Hospital · SGUniversitair Ziekenhuis Brussel · BEAarhus University Hospital · DKChangi General Hospital · SGNational University of Singapore · SGS.L. Raheja Hospital · IN

Funding

Health and Medical Research Fund 04152766
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe aim of the current study was to compare the efficacy of partially covered duodenal stent (PCDS) vs. uncovered duodenal stent (UCDS) in patients suffering from unresectable primary malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO).

methodsThis was a prospective international randomized controlled study conducted in 10 high-volume institutions. Consecutive patients suffering from malignant GOO were recruited. The primary outcome measurement was the reintervention rate. Secondary outcomes included technical and clinical success, 30-day adverse events, 30-day mortality, causes of stent dysfunction, and the duration of stent patency.

resultsBetween March 2017 and October 2020, 115 patients (59 PCDS, 56 UCDS) were recruited. The 1-year reintervention was not significantly different (PCDS vs. UDCS = 12/59, 20.3% vs. 14/56, 25%, P = 0.84). There was a trend to fewer patients with tumor ingrowth in the PCDS group (6/59 [10.2%]) vs. 13/56 [23.2%], P = 0.07). There were no significant differences in the technical success (100% vs. 100%, P = 1), clinical success (91.5% vs. 98.2%, P = 0.21), procedural time (21.5 [interquartile range [IQR] 17-30] vs. 20.0 [IQR 15-34.75], P = 0.62), hospital stay (4 [IQR 3-12] vs. 5 [IQR 3-8] days, P = 0.81), 30-day adverse events (18.6% vs. 14.3%, P = 0.62), or 30-day mortality (6.8% vs. 5.2%, P = 1.00).

conclusionThe use of PCDS was associated with a lower risk of tumor ingrowth but did not improve on reintervention rates or stent patency. Both kinds of stents could be used in this group of patients.

Indexed as

Gastric Outlet ObstructionNeoplasmsStentsHumansPalliative CareProspective StudiesTreatment Outcomemalignant gastric outlet obstructionpartially covered duodenal stentuncovered duodenal stent

Identifiers

PMID37522554
PMCPMC12136258
OpenAlexW4385406063

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.