ReviewSurgical endoscopy2026
Bayesian network meta-analysis comparing efficacy of surgical gastrojejunostomy, endoscopic stenting, and EUS-guided gastroenterostomy for malignant gastric outlet obstruction.
Review in Surgical endoscopy, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsMalignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) substantially impairs quality of life in patients with advanced malignancies. Surgical gastrojejunostomy (S-GJ), endoscopic stenting (ES), and EUS-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) are the principal palliative options. We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis to compare their efficacy and safety.
methodsPubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were searched through April 13, 2026. Randomized controlled trials and eligible comparative cohort studies comparing at least two interventions in adults with malignant GOO were included. Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed, and treatments were ranked using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA).
resultsFifteen studies (7 RCTs and 8 cohort studies; 827 patients) were included. EUS-GE achieved higher clinical success than S-GJ (risk ratio [RR] 1.38, 95% credible interval [CrI] 1.15-1.88; SUCRA 0.98), and ES was also superior to S-GJ (RR 1.18, 95% CrI 1.01-1.49). Reintervention was more frequent with ES than with S-GJ (RR 3.61, 95% CrI 1.43-14.51) or EUS-GE (RR 7.56, 95% CrI 2.02-38.14), whereas EUS-GE ranked highest for durability (SUCRA 0.93). Both endoscopic approaches shortened time to oral intake and hospital stay compared with S-GJ. No statistically significant between-treatment differences were identified for adverse events, 30-day mortality, or overall survival.
conclusionsEUS-GE was associated with a favorable balance of efficacy, durability, and recovery and may represent a promising minimally invasive alternative in centers with appropriate expertise. ES provides rapid recovery but is associated with more frequent reintervention, whereas S-GJ remains an established option. Additional direct randomized comparisons are needed to define the optimal palliative strategy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42886244What 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.