ArticleAnnals of gastroenterology
Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided gastroenterostomy for malignant and benign gastric outlet obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Annals of gastroenterology. 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.
- Malignant Double Obstruction: How Can Advanced Endoscopy Help?Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) with a lumen-apposing metal stent has been proposed as a treatment for patients with gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compute the technical success, clinical success and complication rates of EUS-GE in treating GOO due to either neoplastic or benign diseases. Methods: The literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, from inception until January 23, 2025, according to the PRISMA and MOOSE statement guidelines. The primary objective was to assess both technical and clinical success. A secondary outcome was to rate the adverse events. Results: Data from 39 studies involving 2845 patients were analyzed. The pooled technical success rate was 95.1%, and the procedure was successful in 95.3% and 95.1% of patients with malignant or benign diseases, respectively. Clinical success was achieved in 93.5% of all patients where the procedure had technical success, and in 93.1% and 94.4% of those treated for malignant and benign conditions, respectively. The overall rate of adverse events was 18.5%, including perforation (4.4%), bleeding (2.7%), stent migration (1.4%), stent closure (3.3%), infection (4.4%), and fistula (2.3%). The procedure-related mortality was 1.4%. Conclusion: EUS-GE appears to be a viable approach for the treatment of GOO patients, for both malignant and benign diseases, with favorable outcomes and an acceptable safety profile.
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.