Comparative Effectiveness of Lumen-Apposing Metal Stents and Plastic Stents for the Treatment of Pancreatic Walled-Off Necrosis: A Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Plastic stents (PS), lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) and biflanged metal stents (BFMS) are used for initial drainage of pancreatic walled-off necrosis (WON). There are no strong evidence to support the use of LAMS/BFMS over PS, and prior systematic reviews lack comparative analyses and also lack both trial data and observational studies for WON efficacy outcomes. The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy and adverse events (AEs) in LAMS/BFMS versus PS in patients with pancreatic WON. Methods A comprehensive search up to December 1, 2020, was performed. The primary outcome was clinical improvement after drainage. Secondary outcomes included AEs and technical failure. Pooled odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported using random effects models. Heterogeneity was evaluated with the Cochrane I2 statistic. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed. The quality of the evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE). Results Nine studies (one randomized controlled trial and eight observational) were included for the primary outcome including 493 patients treated with LAMS/BFMS and 514 with PS. LAMS/BFMS were associated with higher odds of clinical improvement compared with PS (OR 2.58; 95% CI 1.81, 3.68; I2 = 1%). This association remained robust in sensitivity analyses. The use of LAMS/BFMS was not associated with higher AEs (OR 1.22; 0.61, 2.46; I2 = 71%). There was no difference in technical failure (OR 1.06; 0.19, 6.00; I2 = 12%). Conclusions LAMS/BFMS seem to result in better clinical outcomes compared with PS in patients with pancreatic WON, with comparable AEs and technical failure. Larger randomized controlled trials for this comparison are warranted.
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 | 0.017 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.026 | 0.067 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".