SynthesisDigestive diseases and sciences2024
Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Different Stent Types for Pancreatic Fluid Collections: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of endoscopic and radiologic drainage for symptomatic postoperative pancreatic fistula-associated collections after distal pancreatectomy.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsDrainage of pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) is required in select cases including infected or symptomatic collections. In this network meta-analysis, we have compared lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS), fully covered self-expandable metal stents (FCSEMS), and double-pigtail stents (DPS) to identify the most useful stent type in the management of PFCs.
methodsWe reviewed several databases to identify studies that compared DPS or FCSEMS with LAMS and the ones which compared DPS with FCSEMS for the treatment of PFCs. Our outcomes of interest were clinical success, adverse events, technical success, recurrence of PFCs, and procedure duration. Random effects model and frequentist approach were used for statistical analysis.
resultsWe included 28 studies with 2974 patients. Rate of clinical success was significantly lower with DPS compared to LAMS, OR (95% CI): 0.43 (0.32, 0.59). Rate of recurrence was higher with DPS compared to LAMS, OR (95% CI): 2.06 (1.19, 3.57). We found no significant difference in rate of adverse events between groups. Rate of technical success was higher for FCSEMS compared to LAMS. Procedure duration was significantly shorter for LAMS compared to DPS and FCSEMS. Based on frequentist approach, LAMS was found to be superior to DPS and FCSEMS in achieving higher clinical success, lower rate of adverse events and recurrence, and shorter procedure time.
conclusionsThis network meta-analysis demonstrates the superiority of LAMS over DPS and FCSEMS in the management of PFCs in achieving a higher clinical success, shorter procedure time, and lower rate of recurrence. Some of the analyses are not adequately powered to make firm conclusions, and future large multicenter RCTs are required to further evaluate this issue.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38940974What 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.