What do systematic reviews say?

SEMS vs plastic tube

• Interventions for dysphagia in oesophageal cancer 2014 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  2 studies · 231 participants
  Moderate

SEMS vs plastic tube

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
• Interventions for dysphagia in oesophageal cancer 2014 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  OR 0.29 [0.07, 1.21]
  3 studies · 110 participants
  High
• Interventions for dysphagia in oesophageal cancer 2014 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  OR 0.41 [0.2, 0.85]
  7 studies · 433 participants
  High

SEMS vs plastic tube

• Interventions for dysphagia in oesophageal cancer 2014 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  2 studies · 178 participants
  Moderate

SEMS vs plastic tube

SEMS probably leads to lower all major side effects (analysis by concealment of allocation) ‐… compared with plastic tube (degree of concealment) (moderate certainty).

• Interventions for dysphagia in oesophageal cancer 2014 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  OR 0.23 [0.13, 0.39]
  4 studies · 303 participants
  Moderate

SEMS vs plastic tube

SEMS probably leads to lower all major side effects (analysis by concealment of allocation) ‐… compared with plastic tube (degree of concealment) (moderate certainty).

• Interventions for dysphagia in oesophageal cancer 2014 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  OR 0.25 [0.1, 0.65]
  3 studies · 110 participants
  Moderate

SEMS vs plastic tube

SEMS probably leads to lower all major adverse effects compared with plastic tube (main analysis) (moderate certainty).

• Interventions for dysphagia in oesophageal cancer 2014 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  OR 0.25 [0.16, 0.39]
  7 studies · 433 participants
  Moderate

SEMS vs laser

SEMS showed no clear difference in persistent or recurrent dysphagia compared with laser (high certainty).

• Interventions for dysphagia in oesophageal cancer 2014 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  OR 0.67 [0.3, 1.54]
  2 studies · 125 participants
  High

SEMS vs laser

SEMS leads to lower interventions for recurrent dysphagia compared with laser (high certainty).

• Interventions for dysphagia in oesophageal cancer 2014 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  OR 0.27 [0.12, 0.6]
  2 studies · 125 participants
  High

SEMS vs laser

SEMS showed no clear difference in adverse effects ‐ All adverse effects compared with laser (moderate certainty).

• Interventions for dysphagia in oesophageal cancer 2014 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  OR 2.26 [0.96, 5.33]
  2 studies · 125 participants
  Moderate

Covered Ultraflex SEMS vs covered Wallstent

• Interventions for dysphagia in oesophageal cancer 2014 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  2 studies · 120 participants
  Moderate

Covered Ultraflex SEMS vs covered Wallstent

Covered Ultraflex SEMS showed no clear difference in persistent or recurrent dysphagia compared with covered Wallstent (moderate certainty).

• Interventions for dysphagia in oesophageal cancer 2014 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  OR 1.27 [0.49, 3.31]
  2 studies · 120 participants
  Moderate

Covered Ultraflex SEMS vs covered Wallstent

Covered Ultraflex SEMS showed no clear difference in all adverse effects compared with covered Wallstent (moderate certainty).

• Interventions for dysphagia in oesophageal cancer 2014 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  OR 0.61 [0.27, 1.38]
  2 studies · 120 participants
  Moderate