ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2025
Irradiation Stents Versus Conventional Stents for Unresectable Malignant Hilar Biliary Obstruction: A Retrospective Study.
Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundImplantation of irradiation stents demonstrates superiority over conventional metal stents in terms of stent patency and survival for patients with distal malignant biliary obstruction. Here, we aimed to explore the efficacy and advantages of irradiation stents compared with conventional metal stents in patients with unresectable malignant hilar biliary obstruction (MHBO).
methodUnresectable MHBO patients treated with irradiation stents (IS group) were prospectively enrolled and followed up, and patients treated with conventional stents (CS group) were retrospectively enrolled by propensity score matching. The end of the follow-up period was recorded as either the date of death or 2 years after stent implantation. The primary endpoint was stent restenosis, while secondary endpoints included technical success, jaundice remission, complications, and survival.
resultsA total of 44 patients were enrolled in this retrospective study (22 in each group). Stents were successfully implanted in all patients. Relief of jaundice was comparable between groups (IS: 81.8% vs. CS:77.3%, P = 0.71). IS group demonstrated superior stent patency with significantly lower restenosis rates (4.55% vs. 22.73% at 180 days, P = 0.041) and unreached median patency time versus 254 days in CS group. Type of stent was the only independent protective factor for stent patency (SHR: 0.12, 95%CI: 0.016-0.928, P = 0.042), while no significant differences emerged in overall survival or complication rates between groups. But multivariate regression analysis suggested that subsequent chemotherapy might provide certain survival benefits.
conclusionImplantation of irradiation stents could prolong stent patency but not affect survival for patients with MHBO.
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.