ReviewJGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology2025
Efficacy of Metal Stents Versus Plastic Stents for Treatment of Walled-Off Pancreatic Necrosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology, 2025. 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.
- Outcomes of Endoscopic Single-Gated Compared to Multigated Approach using Lumen Apposing Metal Stents in the Management of Necrotizing Pancreatitis.Endoscopy international open · 2026Article
- Acute Necrotizing Pancreatitis-Advances and Challenges in Management for Optimal Clinical Outcomes.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- Approach to the Diagnosis and Management of Infected Pancreatic Necrosis: A Narrative Review.Cureus · 2025Review
- Lumen-apposing metal stents versus double pigtail plastic stents for early (<4 weeks of illness) endoscopic transluminal drainage of pancreatic necrotic collections.Annals of gastroenterologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Walled-off necrosis (WON) is a potentially fatal condition best treated endoscopically with metal or plastic stents. This study compares the clinical outcomes of these stents. Methods: PubMed and Cochrane were searched for trials comparing metal and plastic stents for WON. Primary outcomes were clinical and technical success. Results: Seven studies with 230 metal stent patients and 226 plastic stent patients were included. Metal stents showed significantly shorter procedure times (SMD -0.80, 95% CI: -1.25 to -0.34), better 4-week clinical success (OR 1.94, 95% CI: 1.00 to 3.77), and higher procedure costs (SMD 1.38, 95% CI: 0.56 to 2.20). No significant differences were observed in hospital stay (SMD -0.05, 95% CI: -0.35 to 0.25), technical success (OR 1.45, 95% CI: 0.22 to 9.43), clinical success (OR 1.13, 95% CI: 0.54 to 2.39), interventions (SMD -0.02, 95% CI: -0.34 to 0.29), need for necrosectomy (RR 1.10, 95% CI: 0.59 to 2.04), necrosectomy sessions (SMD 0.35, 95% CI: -0.42 to 1.11), need for percutaneous drainage (RR 0.82, 95% CI: 0.36 to 1.85), stent migration (RR 0.88, 95% CI: 0.29 to 2.66), bleeding (RR 0.97, 95% CI: 0.53 to 1.75), WON recurrence (RR 1.66, 95% CI: 0.70 to 3.92), treatment failure (death) (RR 0.75, 95% CI: 0.37 to 1.53), disconnected pancreatic duct (RR 0.93, 95% CI: 0.79 to 1.11), and total cost (SMD -0.02, 95% CI: -0.29 to 0.26). Conclusion: Metal stents offer shorter procedure time and better 4-week clinical success, although at a higher cost, with most clinical outcomes showing no significant differences between stent types.
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.