ArticleTherapeutic advances in gastroenterology2026
Plastic versus metallic stents for endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy in malignant biliary obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) is a biliary drainage technique performed in endoscopic centers worldwide. Objectives: No consensus exists on the different types of stents used. This study assessed the efficacy and safety profile of different EUS-HGS stents in malignant biliary obstruction. Design: This systematic review and meta-analysis followed the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (2020) guidelines. Data sources and methods: Three databases were searched for studies on HGS with plastic or metallic stents from inception to February 5, 2025. Primary outcomes were clinical success, overall adverse events with and without biliary obstruction, and recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO). A random-effects model was used to calculate pooled odds ratios (OR), hazard ratios (HR), and proportion rates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: A total of 25 studies were included. Adverse events excluding RBO were significantly less with plastic stents (OR: 2.20, CI: 1.26-3.84), while the risk of RBO was higher compared to metallic stents (HR: 1.60, CI: 1.21-2.12). There was no significant difference in clinical success between plastic and metallic stents (OR: 0.96, CI: 0.28-3.26). The pooled clinical success rates were 92% (CI: 87%-95%) for plastic stents, 89% (CI: 82%-94%) for partially covered self-expandable metal stents (PCSEMS), 96% (CI: 87%-99%) for fully covered SEMS, and 92% (CI: 86%-95%) for PCSEMS with anchoring. Conclusion: Metallic stents have a longer-term patency than plastic stents. Overall, adverse events were less common with plastic stents, and the clinical success was not different. Therefore, patients with short life expectancy may not benefit from metallic stent use in EUS-HGS. Trial registration: This study was registered with the following number. PROSPERO: CRD42024509412.
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.