SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2026
Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided gastroenterostomy versus conventional approaches for cancer-related malignant gastrointestinal outlet obstruction: a meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.
Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMalignant gastric outlet obstruction (MGOO) is a disabling complication of advanced gastrointestinal cancers, accounting for 50-80% of gastric outlet obstruction cases. As patients have unresectable disease, management is palliative and traditionally relies on surgical gastrojejunostomy (SGJ) or enteral stenting, both with limitations. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) has recently emerged, but its role remains uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing EUS-GE with SGJ and enteral stenting.
methodsPubmed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane were searched for eligible studies. Mean differences (MDs) and risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was examined with I
resultsTwenty-two studies were included, comprising 22,211 and 1,479 patients in the EUS-GE vs SGJ and EUS-GE vs enteral stenting analysis, respectively. EUS-GE was associated with fewer infections (RR 0.46; p = 0.0137), overall postoperative complications (RR 0.38; p < 0.0001), including both major (RR 0.43; p = 0.0109) and minor complications (RR 0.35; p < 0.0001), and a reduced need for reintervention (RR 0.15; p < 0.0001) than SGJ, as well as higher clinical success (RR 1.11; p = 0.0003) compared with enteral stenting. SGJ showed higher technical success (RR 0.98; p = 0.0003).
conclusionEUS-GE offers a safe and effective minimally invasive alternative for MGOO. Its growing evidence base supports its consideration as a preferred option in centers with appropriate expertise.
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.