↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Palliative biliary stents for obstructing pancreatic carcinoma

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2006
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
76 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
142 Mendeley
Title
Palliative biliary stents for obstructing pancreatic carcinoma
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2006
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004200.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Moss, AC, Morris, E, MacMathuna, P

Abstract

Palliative endoscopic stents or surgical by-pass are often required for inoperable pancreatic carcinoma to relieve symptomatic obstruction of the distal biliary tree. The optimal method of intervention remains unknown. To compare surgery, metal endoscopic stents and plastic endoscopic stents in the relief of distal biliary obstruction in patients with inoperable pancreatic carcinoma. We searched the databases of the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Group specialised register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CancerLit, Current Concepts Database and BIDS (September 2002 to September 2004). The searches were re-run in December 2005 and we are awaiting further details on two trials. Reference lists of articles and published abstracts from UEGW and DDW were hand-searched. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing surgery to endoscopic stenting, endoscopic metal stents to plastic stents, and different types of endoscopic plastic and metal stents, used to relieve obstruction of the distal bile duct in patients with inoperable pancreatic carcinoma. Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Adverse effects information was collected from the trials. Twenty-one trials involving 1,454 people were included. Based on meta-analysis, endoscopic stenting with plastic stents appears to be associated with a reduced risk of complications (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.45 - 0.81), but with higher risk of recurrent biliary obstruction prior to death (RR 18.59, 95% CI 5.33 - 64.86) when compared with surgery. There was a trend towards higher 30-day mortality in the surgical group (p=0.07, RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.32, 1.04). There was no evidence of a difference in technical or therapeutic success. Other outcomes were not suitable for meta-analysis. No trials comparing endoscopic metal stents to surgery were identified. In endoscopic stent comparisons, metal biliary stents appear to have a lower risk of recurrent biliary obstruction than plastic stents (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.39 - 0.69). There was no significant statistical difference in technical success, therapeutic success, complications or 30-day mortality using meta-analysis. A narrative review of studies of the cost-effectiveness of metal stents drew conflicting conclusions, but results may be dependent on the patients' length of survival.Neither Teflon, hydrourethane, or hydrophilic coating appear to improve the patency of plastic stents above polyethylene in the trials reviewed. Only perflouro alkoxy plastic stents had superior outcome to polyethylene stents in one trial. The single eligible trial comparing types of metal stents reported higher patency with covered stents, but also a higher risk of complications. These results are based on review of the trials individual results only. Endoscopic metal stents are the intervention of choice at present in patients with malignant distal obstructive jaundice due to pancreatic carcinoma. In patients with short predicted survival, their patency benefits over plastic stents may not be realised. Further RCTs are needed to determine the optimal stent type for these patients.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 142 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 2 1%
Morocco 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Saudi Arabia 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 135 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 18 13%
Student > Master 18 13%
Researcher 16 11%
Student > Bachelor 14 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 8%
Other 36 25%
Unknown 29 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 83 58%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 3%
Psychology 3 2%
Unspecified 3 2%
Other 11 8%
Unknown 33 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 January 2023.
All research outputs
#7,755,938
of 23,575,882 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,317
of 12,744 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,606
of 66,993 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#26
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,575,882 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,744 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.2. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 66,993 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.