Uncovered versus covered stent in management of large bowel obstruction due to colorectal malignancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare outcomes of uncovered stent and covered stent in management of large bowel obstruction secondary to colorectal malignancy. METHODS: We conducted a search of electronic databases identifying studies comparing outcomes of uncovered and covered stents in management of large bowel obstruction secondary to colorectal malignancy. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale were used to assess the included studies. Random or fixed effects modelling were applied as appropriate to calculate pooled outcome data. RESULTS: One randomised controlled trial (RCT) and nine observational studies, enrolling 753 patients, were identified. Uncovered stent was associated with lower risks of complications (RR 0.57 95% CI 0.44-0.74, P < 0.0001), tumour overgrowth (RR 0.29 95% CI 0.09-0.93, P = 0.04), and stent migration (RR 0.29 95% CI 0.17-0.48, P < 0.00001); longer duration of patency (MD 18.47 95% CI 10.46-26.48, P < 0.00001); lower need for stent reinsertion (RR 0.38 95% CI 0.17-0.86, P = 0.02); and higher risk of tumour ingrowth (RR 4.53 95% CI 1.92-10.69, P = 0.0008). Rates of technical success (RR 1.02 95% CI 0.99-1.04, P = 0.21), clinical success (RR 1.03 95% CI 0.98-1.08, P = 0.32), perforation (RD 0.01 95% CI - 0.03-0.02, P = 0.65), bleeding (RD 0.00 95% CI - 0.03-0.03, P = 0.98), stool impaction (RR 0.56 95% CI 0.12-2.04, P = 0.38) and stent obstruction (RR 2.23 95% CI 0.94-5.34, P = 0.97) were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that uncovered stents are superior as indicated by fewer complications, lower rates of stent migration, longer duration of patency and a reduced need for stent reinsertion. The best available evidence is mainly derived from non-randomised studies; there is a need for more RCTs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".