SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2024
Safety and efficacy of biliary suprapapillary metal and plastic stents in malignant biliary obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- One-Way Street: The Efficacy of Unilateral Biliary Stenting in Patients with Malignant Hilar Biliary Obstruction.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2026Article
- Screw stent removal technique using a novel grasping device after inside plastic stent deployment for hilar biliary obstruction.Endoscopy · 2025Article
- Prospective evaluation study of a novel endoscopic revision technique after metal stent deployment for hepatic hilar obstruction.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsBiliary drainage is vital in managing malignant biliary obstruction (MBO). Suprapapillary stenting has emerged as a viable alternative to transpapillary stenting and is performed using inside plastic (iPS) or metal stents (iMS). This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the outcomes of suprapapillary stent placement for MBO.
methodsThe Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched to include all studies published before September 31, 2023, that reported on the outcomes of suprapapillary stents placed for MBO. Using the random-effect model, the pooled, weight-adjusted event rate estimate for the clinical outcomes was calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
resultsTwenty-eight studies were included, with a total of 1401 patients. The pooled clinical success rate was 98.9%. A subgroup analysis yielded non-significant differences between the iPS and iMS groups (99.3% vs. 98.6%, respectively; P = 0.44). The pooled incidence rate of adverse events (AE) with suprapapillary stents was 9.5%. In a subgroup analysis, the incidence of AEs with iPS was 10.7% compared to 9% in the iMS group without a statistical difference (P = 0.32). The most common adverse event was cholangitis (2.2%), followed by pancreatitis (1.1%), cholecystitis (0.5%), and bleeding (0.12%).
conclusionWhen technically feasible, suprapapillary stenting for MBO is a viable endoscopic option with a high clinical success rate and acceptable adverse event rates. Both iPS and iMS exhibit similar efficacy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38987483What 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.