Cochrane · systematic review · CD012358
Expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE)‐covered stents versus bare stents for transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt in people with liver cirrhosis
Zhu, P, Dong, S, Sun, P, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2023 · Cochrane Library
Hepato-BiliaryAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
12
current version
GRADE rated
12
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 6 · 50%Low 6 · 50%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
ePTFE‐covered stents versus bare stents for transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) in people with liver cirrhosis – same stent diameter
Population: transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt in people with liver cirrhosis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
All‐cause mortality ePTFE‐covered stents vs bare stents | RR 0.63 [0.43, 0.92] | 1 study · 258 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Upper gastrointestinal bleeding ePTFE‐covered stents vs bare stents | RR 0.54 [0.35, 0.84] | 1 study · 258 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Recurrence of ascites ePTFE‐covered stents vs bare stents | RR 0.42 [0.2, 0.87] | 1 study · 258 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Hepatic encephalopathy ePTFE‐covered stents vs bare stents | RR 1.1 [0.76, 1.61] | 1 study · 258 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Shunt dysfunction ePTFE‐covered stents vs bare stents | RR 0.42 [0.28, 0.61] | 1 study · 258 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
ePTFE‐covered stents versus bare stents for transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt in people with liver cirrhosis – different stent diameters
Population: transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt in people with liver cirrhosis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
All‐cause mortalitya ePTFE‐covered stents vs bare stents | RR 0.75 [0.48, 1.16] | 3 studies · 269 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Procedure‐related complications ePTFE‐covered stents vs bare stents | RR 0.53 [0.05, 5.57] | 1 study · 80 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Upper gastrointestinal bleeding ePTFE‐covered stents vs bare stents | RR 0.46 [0.15, 1.38] | 3 studies · 269 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Recurrence of ascites ePTFE‐covered stents vs bare stents | RR 0.3 [0.11, 0.85] | 3 studies · 269 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Hepatic encephalopathy ePTFE‐covered stents vs bare stents | RR 0.93 [0.66, 1.3] | 3 studies · 269 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Kidney failure ePTFE‐covered stents vs bare stents | RR 7.59 [0.4, 143.92] | 1 study · 121 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Shunt dysfunctiona ePTFE‐covered stents vs bare stents | RR 0.5 [0.28, 0.92] | 3 studies · 269 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |