ArticleTherapeutic advances in gastroenterology2024
Safety and efficacy of side-by-side versus stent-in-stent stenting for malignant hilar biliary obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology, 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.
- Tetra-side-by-side technique using a multi-hole self-expandable metal stent with a 5.9-Fr stent delivery system.Endoscopy · 2026Article
- Efficacy of fully covered self-expanding metal stents removal versus stent-in-stent techniques in recurrent malignant distal biliary obstruction.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- A rescue technique for failed stent deployment by the stent-in-stent technique using mesh broken by holmium laser ablation.Endoscopy · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Stenting of the malignant hilar biliary obstruction (MHBO) area for bile drainage is challenging. Bilateral stenting techniques of stent-in-stent (SIS) and stent-by-stent (SBS) have shown promising results. This study evaluates the efficacy of different stenting methods for MHBO. Design: A meta-analysis was performed to determine the efficacy of SIS and SBS stenting strategies for MHBO. Data sources and methods: Medical databases such as PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Scopus, were searched up to August 2023. We selected eligible studies reporting the data on technical and clinical success, adverse events, and incidence of re-obstruction (RO) of SBS and SIS groups in MHBO patients. We compared the outcomes of SBS and SIS groups. Results: A total of 9 studies comparing the data of 545 patients (268 in the SBS group and 277 in the SIS stenting group) were analyzed. There was no significant difference ( Conclusion: Compared with SIS, SBS showed better stent patency with comparable technical and clinical success and adverse events. Prospero registration: The registration number for this study on PROSPERO is CRD42024523230.
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.