ReviewFrontiers in oncology2023
Biliary drainage in malignant biliary obstruction: an umbrella review of randomized controlled trials.
Review in Frontiers in oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Safety and feasibility of omitting routine endoscopic nasobiliary drainage after ERCP for common bile duct stones: a prospective comparative study.BMC surgery · 2026Article
- Irradiation Stents Versus Conventional Stents for Unresectable Malignant Hilar Biliary Obstruction: A Retrospective Study.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2025Article
- Stent Patency and Survival after PTBD and Biliary Stenting for Pancreatic Cancer: A 5-Year Retrospective Cohort Study.Archives of Iranian medicine · 2025Article
- Role of endoscopic-ultrasound-guided biliary drainage with electrocautery-enhanced lumen-apposing metal stent for palliation of malignant biliary obstruction.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: There are still many controversies about biliary drainage in MBO, and we aimed to summarize and evaluate the evidence associated with biliary drainage. Methods: We conducted an umbrella review of SRoMAs based on RCTs. Through July 28, 2022, Embase, PubMed, WOS, and Cochrane Database were searched. Two reviewers independently screened the studies, extracted the data, and appraised the methodological quality of the included studies. GRADE was used to evaluate the quality of the evidence. Results: 36 SRoMAs were identified. After excluding 24 overlapping studies, 12 SRoMAs, including 76 RCTs, and 124 clinical outcomes for biliary drainage in MBO were included. Of the 124 pieces of evidence evaluated, 13 were rated "High" quality, 38 were rated "Moderate", and the rest were rated "Low" or "Very low". For patients with MBO, Conclusions: Our study summarizes a large amount of evidence related to biliary drainage, which helps to reduce the uncertainty in the selection of biliary drainage strategies for MBO patients under different circumstances.
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.