ReviewEndoscopy international open2026
EUS-HGS with antegrade stenting vs. hepaticogastrostomy alone for malignant biliary drainage: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Endoscopy international open, 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and study aims: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) is an effective and safe therapeutic option for biliary drainage in patients with malignant biliary obstruction (MBO). Several authors proposed use of antegrade stenting (AS) combined with EUS-HGS to improve long-term outcomes, with controversial results. We aimed to assess pooled performance of EUS-HGS+AS compared with EUS-HGS alone. Methods: Database search was performed to identify studies comparing EUS-HGS+AS to EUS-HGS alone for biliary drainage in patients with MBO. Primary outcome was recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO). Secondary outcomes were technical, clinical success, adverse events (AEs), severe AEs rate, time to RBO, and overall survival (OS). Relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effect model. Results: Five studies involving 555 patients were retrieved. RBO was lower in patients who underwent EUS-HGS+AS (RR 0.30; [0.18-0.49]; Conclusions: Combining AS with EUS-HGS reduces RBO risk in patients with MBO, without impact on technical, clinical success rates, or safety profile. Randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these observations.
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.