SynthesisMedicine2026
Metallic versus plastic stents for the management of biliary obstruction: A GRADE-assessed systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 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
22 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBiliary obstruction can be managed with metallic stents (MS) or plastic stents (PS), but comparative evidence across benign and malignant conditions remains uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing MS and PS.
methodsPubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched from inception to the search date. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing MS with PS in patients with benign or malignant biliary obstruction were eligible. Primary analyses compared MS with PS across the overall eligible population, including both benign and malignant obstruction. Where sufficient outcome-specific data were available, subgroup analyses were performed according to disease etiology (benign vs malignant). Outcomes included functional success, adverse events, recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO), procedure time, and overall survival. Meta-analysis was performed with Hartung-Knapp sensitivity analyses.
resultsNine studies comprising 890 participants were included. Functional success was comparable between MS and PS (RR = 1.03, 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.96-1.11). Among 8 studies contributing adverse-event data, no significant difference was observed (RR = 1.37, 95% CI: 0.92-2.03; P = .123; I2 = 45.4%). Adverse events were higher with MS in malignant disease (RR = 1.74, 95% CI: 1.15-2.63) but not benign disease (RR = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.83-1.23; P for subgroup difference = .020). Hartung-Knapp analysis remained non-significant (RR = 1.37, 95% CI: 0.96-1.95; P = .078). MS showed a lower risk of RBO (RR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.32-1.17; I2 = 93.1%), supported by Hartung-Knapp analysis (RR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.41-0.91).
conclusionMS and PS demonstrated comparable functional success and overall adverse-event rates, although adverse events were higher with MS in malignant disease. MS may improve stent durability, but substantial heterogeneity limits certainty. Available studies did not demonstrate a consistent survival advantage. Further randomized trials are warranted.
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.