Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42422639›Full record

ArticleCureus2026

Implementation of an Electronic Endoscopic Stent Register in a District General Hospital in the National Health Service (NHS), United Kingdom.

Ahmed Abdelwahed, Radhakrishnan Ganesh, Stephen McNally

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Ahmed AbdelwahedUpper GI and General Surgery, Raigmore Hospital, NHS Highland, Inverness, GBR.
Radhakrishnan GaneshUpper GI and General Surgery, Raigmore Hospital, NHS Highland, Inverness, GBR.
Stephen McNallyUpper GI and General Surgery, Raigmore Hospital, NHS Highland, Inverness, GBR.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction Serious and life-threatening complications can occur from the delayed removal of biliary stents. A robust system is needed to ensure the timely removal of stents. We aimed to evaluate our practice of using a stent register to remove stents on time and identify system failures that contribute to missed stent removals. Method A new electronic stent register was introduced in our endoscopy service of a busy district general hospital under the National Health Service (NHS) in the United Kingdom. This register was initiated to support the tracking of patients who had biliary stents placed to ensure that this is removed on time. We analysed the usefulness of our register in managing patients who had a biliary stent placed. Data was extracted from the database after a 20-month data collection period. Collected data included stent type and follow-up plans. The electronic record was examined for clinical course and evidence of removal. Results Over the study period, 414 patients underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), and 89 patients had stents placed. After clinical review, 82 cases were managed appropriately. In seven cases, stents were overdue for removal. The reasons for delay were: patient preference (n=1); relocation out of area (n=2); and inadequate follow-up (n=4). The register also identified patients with oesophageal and lumen-apposing metal stents, all of whom had appropriate follow-up and removal plans documented. Conclusion Inadequate follow-up documentation and unclear responsibility for ongoing surveillance were identified in the majority of genuinely overdue cases. Implementation of an electronic stent register successfully identifies patients with overdue stent removal or exchange. Successful implementation of a stent register requires regular clinical oversight and consistent staff engagement.

Indexed as

endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ercp)plastic biliary stentquality improvement and patient safetystent registerstent-related complications

Identifiers

PMID42422639
PMCPMC13343086

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.