ArticleDEN open2025
Efficacy of palliative stenting in patients with esophageal obstruction attributable to malignancy.
Article in DEN open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) placement is useful for patients with poor oral intake caused by esophageal stricture attributable to malignancy. In this study, we examined the usefulness of esophageal SEMS placement as a palliative treatment and evaluated the prognostic factors. Materials and methods: Patients who underwent esophageal SEMS placement at three regional base hospitals from December 2007 to June 2023 were included in the study. Results: Of 73 patients, 57 patients who underwent palliative SEMS placement were evaluated after excluding 16 patients in whom postoperative treatment was possible after SEMS placement. Median survival after SEMS placement was 67 days (mean, 96 ± 16 days). Univariate analysis identified age (≤78 years vs. >78 years), performance status (3 or 4 vs. 1 or 2), the cancer location (other sites vs. gastrointestinal cancer), the resumption of oral intake (failure vs. success), and clinical stage (IVA/IVB vs. III) as prognostic factors after SEMS placement. On multivariate analysis, performance status 3 or 4 (odds ratio [OR] = 2.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.28-6.45), cancers other than gastrointestinal cancer (OR = 3.75, 95% CI = 1.14-12.3), and failure to resume oral intake (OR = 21.3, 95% CI = 3.40-133.0) were significantly associated with poor prognosis. Conclusions: Palliative treatment with SEMS placement was safe, and a high percentage of patients resumed food intake. An inability to resume food intake, poor performance status, and cancer outside the gastrointestinal tract were poor prognostic factors.
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.