RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment for malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) remains uncertain. This systematic review aimed to comprehensively investigate the efficacy and safety of four palliative treatments for malignant GOO: gastrojejunostomy, endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE), stomach-partitioning gastrojejunostomy (PGJ), and endoscopic stenting. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science databases, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies comparing the four treatments for malignant GOO. We included studies that reported at least one of the following clinical outcomes: clinical success, 30-day mortality, reintervention rate, or length of hospital stay. Evidence from RCTs and non-RCTs was naïve combined to perform network meta-analysis through the frequentist approach using an inverse variance model. Treatments were ranked by P score. RESULTS: This network meta-analysis included 3617 patients from 4 RCTs, 4 prospective cohort studies, and 32 retrospective cohort studies. PGJ was the optimal approach in terms of clinical success and reintervention (P scores: 0.95 and 0.90, respectively). EUS-GE had the highest probability of being the optimal treatment in terms of 30-day mortality and complications (P scores: 0.82 and 0.99, respectively). Cluster ranking to combine the P scores for 30-day mortality and reintervention indicated the benefits of PGJ and EUS-GE (cophenetic correlation coefficient: 0.94; PGJ and EUS-GE were in the same cluster). CONCLUSION: PGJ and EUS-GE are recommended for malignant GOO. PGJ could be the alternative choice in centers with limited resources or in patients who are unsuitable for EUS-GE.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of four questionnaire-based tools (i.e., the FRAIL scale, Groningen Frailty Indicator [GFI], Tilburg Frailty Indicator [TFI], and PRISMA-7) for screening frailty in older adults. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The 4 databases comprising the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, PubMed, and ProQuest were searched from inception to June 20, 2023. Study quality comprising risks of bias and applicability was assessed via a QUADAS-2 questionnaire. A bivariate network meta-analysis model and Youden's index were performed to identify the optimal tool and cutoff points. RESULTS: In total, 20 studies comprising 13 for FRAIL, 7 for GFI, 6 for TFI, and 5 for PRISMA-7 were included. Regarding study quality appraisal, all studies had high risks of bias for study quality assessment domains. Values of the pooled sensitivity of the FRAIL scale, GFI, TFI, and PRISMA-7 were 0.58, 0.74, 0.66, and 0.73, respectively. Values of the pooled specificity of the FRAIL scale, GFI, TFI, and PRISMA-7 were 0.92, 0.77, 0.84, and 0.86, respectively. The Youden's index was obtained for the FRAIL scale with a cutoff of 2 points (Youden's indexâ =â 0.65), indicating that the FRAIL scale with a cutoff of 2 points was the optimal tool for frailty screening in older adults. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: The FRAIL scale comprising 5 self-assessed items is a suitable tool for interview older adults for early frailty detection in community settings; it has the advantages of being short, simple, and easy to respond to.
