SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2025
Metal stents versus plastic stents for drainage of pancreatic fluid collections: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials with trial sequential analysis.
Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. 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
- Interventional endosonography comes of age: an update on endoscopic ultrasonography-guided drainage and anastomosis procedures.Singapore medical journal · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsPancreatic fluid collections (PFCs), including walled-off necrosis (WON), are significant complications of acute pancreatitis, and their management often involves drainage, although the optimal type of stent for this purpose remains uncertain. This meta-analysis aimed to compare metal versus plastic stents for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage of PFCs.
methodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing metal with plastic stents for drainage of PFCs. The odds ratio (OR) was used for binary outcomes and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with their respective 95% confidence interval (CI).
resultsThis study included eight RCTs and over 500 patients. Procedure duration was shorter in the metal stent arm compared with the plastic stent arm (MD - 10.63; 95% CI - 16.12 to - 5.15, p < 0.001). However, there was no statistically significant difference between metal and plastic stents in clinical success (OR 1.10; 95% CI 0.56 to 2.14), technical success (OR 1.53; 95% CI 0.23 to 10.0), overall mortality (OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.34 to 1.67), recurrence (OR 1.76; 95%CI 0.70 to 4.44), total number of interventions (MD 0.06; 95% CI - 0.52 to 0.64), need of necrosectomy (OR 1.27; 95% CI 0.77 to 2.11), length of hospitalization (MD - 0.41; 95% CI - 5.10 to 4.27), exocrine insufficiency (OR 1.37; 95% CI 0.50 to 3.71), endocrine insufficiency (OR 1.11; 95% CI 0.57 to 2.16), and adverse events (OR 0.74; 95% CI 0.39 to 1.41).
conclusionMetal stents for EUS-guided drainage of WON are associated with a shorter procedure duration. Besides that, it may not improve other clinically relevant outcomes in comparison with plastic stents.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39849071What 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.