SEMS vs plastic tube: Persistent or recurrent dysphagia
SEMS showed no clear difference in persistent or recurrent dysphagia (analysis by concealment of… compared with plastic tube (degree of concealment) (high certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
SEMS vs plastic tube (degree of concealment) Persistent or recurrent dysphagia (analysis by concealment of allocation) ‐ Concealment of allocation A · patients with dysphagia in oesophageal cancer SEMS showed no clear difference in persistent or recurrent dysphagia (analysis by concealment of… compared with plastic tube (degree of concealment) (high certainty). Interventions for dysphagia in oesophageal cancer (2014) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | OR 0.49 [0.19, 1.28] | 4 studies · 323 participants | High |
SEMS vs plastic tube (degree of concealment) Persistent or recurrent dysphagia (analysis by concealment of allocation) ‐ Concealment of allocation non‐A · patients with dysphagia in oesophageal cancer SEMS showed no clear difference in persistent or recurrent dysphagia (analysis by concealment of… compared with plastic tube (degree of concealment) (high certainty). Interventions for dysphagia in oesophageal cancer (2014) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | OR 0.29 [0.07, 1.21] | 3 studies · 110 participants | High |
SEMS vs plastic tube (main analysis) Persistent or recurrent dysphagia · patients with dysphagia in oesophageal cancer SEMS leads to lower persistent or recurrent dysphagia compared with plastic tube (main analysis) (high certainty). Interventions for dysphagia in oesophageal cancer (2014) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | OR 0.41 [0.2, 0.85] | 7 studies · 433 participants | High |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interventions for dysphagia in oesophageal cancer 2014 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.