ReviewDEN open2026
Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Drainage With Lumen-apposing Metal Stent versus Plastic Stent for the Treatment of Pancreatic Pseudocyst: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Review in DEN open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Etiology, diagnosis, and management of chronic pancreatitis associated primary complications: a narrative review.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pancreatic pseudocyst (PP), following acute or chronic pancreatitis, may become symptomatic or persist beyond 6-8 weeks, requiring drainage. Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided drainage (EUS-D) is the preferred method, using double pigtail plastic stents (DPPS) or self-expandable metallic stents (SEMS), such as lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS). This meta-analysis compares DPPS and LAMS in EUS-D for PP, focusing on technical success, clinical success, adverse events (AEs), recurrence, and procedure time. Methods: A search strategy was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, Lilacs, and Cochrane databases according to PRISMA guidelines. Random-effect models were used for statistical analysis based on intention-to-treat. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I Results: Ten studies were included: one prospective cohort and nine retrospective cohorts, conducted between 2014 and 2024. A total of 502 patients with PP were treated with EUS-D. The clinical success rate was higher using LAMS (Risk ratio [RR] = 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01; 1.09; I Conclusion: The study demonstrated that LAMS has a higher clinical success rate and a shorter procedure time compared to DPPS. There is no difference in terms of early and late AEs, recurrence, and technical success.
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.