ArticleIntestinal research2025
Newly designed flared-end covered versus uncovered self-expandable metallic stents for palliation of malignant colorectal obstruction: a randomized, prospective study.
Article in Intestinal research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02640781 (Comparison of Efficacy Between a Newly Designed Covered Stent and Uncovered Stent for Malignant Colorectal Obstruction), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Comparison of Efficacy Between a Newly Designed Covered Stent and Uncovered Stent for Malignant Colorectal Obstruction: a Prospective, Multicenter Study
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsSelf-expandable metallic stents (SEMSs) are widely used as palliative or bridge to surgery treatments in patients with malignant colorectal obstruction (MCO). Stent occlusion is more common with uncovered stents, but stent migration is more common with covered stents. Our purpose was to compare the efficacy and safety of a newly designed covered SEMS with an uncovered proximal flared end (CSEMS-UPF) with that of the conventional uncovered SEMS (UCSEMS) in the treatment of MCO.
methodsThis prospective randomized trial was conducted at a tertiary-care academic hospital. We enrolled 87 patients with stage 4 cancer and MCO: colorectal cancer in 60 patients and extracolonic cancer in 27 patients. Insertion of UCSEMS was randomly assigned to 43 patients, and 44 patients received the CSEMS-UPF. The primary outcome was the duration of stent patency after successful placement. The secondary outcomes were the number of patients with technical and clinical success and early and late complications from the stent insertion.
resultsThe median patency of the stent did not differ between the UCSEMS and CSEMS-UPF groups (484 [231-737] days vs. 216 [66-366] days, P= 0.242). The technical and clinical success rates did not differ significantly between the groups, either (100.0% vs. 93.2%, respectively, P= 0.241; 100.0% vs. 92.7%, respectively, P= 0.112), nor did the early (n = 2 [4.7%] vs. n = 4 [9.8%], P> 0.999) or late (n = 12 [27.9%] vs. n = 15 [36.6%], P> 0.999) stent complication rates differ between the groups.
conclusionsThe UCSEMS and newly developed CSEMS-UPF are similarly effective treatments for MCO, with no differences in the stent migration or occlusion rates (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02640781).
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.