4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy versus duodenal stenting for gastric outlet obstruction: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background:

          Gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) refers to mechanical obstruction at the level of the gastric outlet and is associated with significantly impacted quality of life and mortality. Duodenal stenting (DS) offers a minimally invasive approach to managing GOO but is associated with a high risk of stent obstruction. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) is a novel intervention that uses lumen-apposing metal stents to open the restricted lumen. The current evidence comparing EUS-GE to DS is limited and inconsistent.

          Methods:

          We conducted a systematic literature search on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Scopus, and clinicaltrials.gov to retrieve studies comparing EUS-GE to DS for GOO. Odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD) with their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled using the DerSimonian-Laird inverse variance random-effects model. Statistical significance was set at P < .05.

          Results:

          Ten studies with a total of 1275 GOO patients (585: EUS-GE and 690: DS) were included. EUS-GE was associated with statistically significant higher clinical success [OR: 2.52; 95% CI: 1.64, 3.86; P < .001], lower re-intervention rate [OR: 0.12; 95% CI: 0.06, 0.22; P < .00001], longer procedural time [MD: 20.91; 95% CI: 15.48, 26.35; P < .00001], and lower risk of adverse events [OR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.29, 0.82; P = .007] than DS. Technical success [OR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.31, 1.25] and the length of hospital stay [MD: −2.12; 95% CI: −5.23, 0.98] were comparable between the 2 groups.

          Conclusion:

          EUS-GE is associated with higher clinical success, longer total procedural time, lower re-intervention rate, and lower risk of adverse events than DS. Technical success and the length of hospital stay were comparable between the 2 groups. EUS-GE appears to be a safe and effective procedure for managing GOO. Further large, multicentric randomized controlled trials are warranted to investigate the safety and outcomes of EUS-GE in patients with malignant GOO.

          Related collections

          Most cited references56

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found
            Is Open Access

            The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration.

            Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement--a reporting guideline published in 1999--there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Operating Characteristics of a Rank Correlation Test for Publication Bias

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Medicine (Baltimore)
                Medicine (Baltimore)
                MD
                Medicine
                Lippincott Williams & Wilkins (Hagerstown, MD )
                0025-7974
                1536-5964
                04 October 2024
                04 October 2024
                : 103
                : 40
                : e39948
                Affiliations
                [a ]Department of Internal Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Jodhpur, Jodhpur, India
                [b ]Department of Internal Medicine, Medical College Kolkata, Kolkata, West Bengal, India
                [c ]Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan
                [d ]Faculty of Medicine, Al-Balqa’ Applied University, Salt, Jordan
                [e ]Department of Internal Medicine, Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad, Pakistan
                [f ]Department of Internal Medicine, Adesh Medical College and Hospital, Ambala, India
                [g ]Department of Internal Medicine, Seth GS Medical College and KEM Hospital, Mumbai, India
                [h ]Department of Internal Medicine, Rawalpindi Medical University, Rawalpindi, Pakistan
                [i ]Department of Internal Medicine, Al-Kindy College of Medicine, University of Baghdad, Baghdad, Iraq
                [j ]Department of Internal Medicine, Maharajgunj Medical Campus, Institute of Medicine, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, Nepal.
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence: Rukesh Yadav, Department of Internal Medicine, Maharajgunj Medical Campus, Institute of Medicine, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, 44600, Nepal (e-mail: rukeshyadav46@ 123456gmail.com ).
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0282-0251
                Article
                MD-D-24-05465 00057
                10.1097/MD.0000000000039948
                11460917
                e53664e4-fb08-42f5-a4ce-91f467b05b04
                Copyright © 2024 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial License 4.0 (CCBY-NC), where it is permissible to download, share, remix, transform, and buildup the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be used commercially without permission from the journal.

                History
                : 17 May 2024
                : 30 August 2024
                : 13 September 2024
                Categories
                4500
                Research Article
                Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
                Custom metadata
                TRUE
                T

                duodenal stenting,endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy,enteral stenting,gastric outlet obstruction,meta-analysis

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content305

                Most referenced authors1,011