医学
相对风险
置信区间
危险系数
背景(考古学)
随机对照试验
支架
荟萃分析
胆道支架
外科
自膨胀金属支架
科克伦图书馆
内科学
胃肠病学
古生物学
生物
作者
Lian-Biao Li,Wenyan Qin,Wenping Peng,Jin‐Zhen Li,Mingming Zhang,Bo Lao,Jie-Ming Hong
摘要
Context: Self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs) are commonly used in the treatment of malignant biliary obstruction. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of covered self-expandable metallic stents (CSEMSs) and uncovered self-expandable metallic stents (UCSEMSs) for patients with malignant distal biliary obstruction. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and CNKI databases from 2010 to 2019. All randomized controlled trials, which compared the use of the CSEMSs and UCSEMSs for the treatment of malignant distal biliary obstruction were included in this study. Results: This meta-analysis included 1,539 patients enrolled in 13 trials. There was no difference between the two groups in terms of patients’ survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.87 - 1.07; I2 = 32.6%), stent patency (HR 0.92, 95% CI: 0.69 - 1.22; I2 = 56.3%), and the overall complication rate (relative risks (RR) 1.35, 95% CI: 0.82 - 2.23; I2 = 0%). In particular, the CSEMSs group presented a lower rate of tumor ingrowth (RR 0.30, 95% CI: 0.15 - 0.57; I2 = 58.5%) than the UCSEMSs group. However, the CSEMSs group exhibited a higher rate of tumor overgrowth (RR 1.63, 95% CI: 1.00 - 2.66; I2 = 0%), sludge formation (RR 2.28, 95% CI: 1.36 - 3.82; I2 = 0%), and migration (RR 5.14, 95% CI: 1.90 - 13.88; I2 = 0%). Conclusions: Our meta-analysis indicated that there was no significant difference between the two stents, and each one had its advantages and disadvantages.
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI