Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 257

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of self-expanding metallic stents as a bridge to surgery versus emergency surgery for malignant left-sided large bowel obstruction

Tan, C J, Dasari, B V M, Gardiner, K·2012·British Journal of Surgery

Abstract

Background: Use of self-expanding metallic stents (SEMS) as a bridge to surgery has been suggested as an alternative management for acute malignant left-sided colonic obstruction, as emergency surgery has a high risk of morbidity and mortality. This meta-analysis evaluated high-quality evidence comparing preoperative SEMS with emergency surgery. Methods: Relevant randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase and PubMed (1990–2011). Primary outcomes were primary anastomosis, stoma and in-hospital mortality rates. Secondary outcomes included anastomotic leak, 30-day reoperation and surgical-site infection rates. Results: Four RCTs with 234 patients were included. Technical and clinical success rates for stenting were 70·7 per cent (82 of 116) and 69·0 per cent (80 of 116) respectively. The clinical perforation rate was 6·9 per cent (8 of 116) and the silent perforation rate 14 per cent (11 of 77). SEMS intervention resulted in significantly higher successful primary anastomosis (risk ratio (RR) 1·58, 95 per cent confidence interval 1·22 to 2·04; P < 0·001) and lower overall stoma (RR 0·71, 0·56 to 0·89; P = 0·004) rates. There was no difference in primary anastomosis, permanent stoma, in-hospital mortality, anastomotic leak, 30-day reoperation and surgical-site infection rates. Three trials were stopped prematurely, one because the emergency surgery group had a significantly increased anastomotic leak rate, and two others because of stent-related complications and increased 30-day morbidity following SEMS management. Conclusion: Technical and clinical success rates for stenting were lower than expected. SEMS is associated with a high incidence of clinical and silent perforation. However, as a bridge to surgery, SEMS has higher successful primary anastomosis and lower overall stoma rates, with no significant difference in complications or mortality.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/bjs.8689

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 11 references

Metadata

Authors
Tan, C. J., Dasari, B. V. M., & Gardiner, K.
Venue
British Journal of Surgery
Published
2012-01-19
Volume
99
Issue
4
Pages
469-476
ISSN
  • 0007-1323 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2168
OpenAlex
W2171916610
Cited by
257
References
11
FWCI
3.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of self-expanding metallic stents as a bridge to surgery versus emergency surgery for malignant left-sided large bowel obstruction. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/bjs.8689
The paper
Tan, C. J., Dasari, B. V. M., & Gardiner, K. (2012). Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of self-expanding metallic stents as a bridge to surgery versus emergency surgery for malignant left-sided large bowel obstruction. British Journal of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.8689

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.