Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21487866›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2011

Causes of bolus impaction in the esophagus.

Gabriele I Kirchner, Ina Zuber-Jerger, Esther Endlicher, Cornelia Gelbmann, Claudia Ott, Petra Ruemmele, Jürgen Schölmerich, Frank Klebl

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Barrier Dysfunction in Eosinophilic Esophagitis.Current gastroenterology reports · 2023
    Review
  9. Food bolus and oesophageal foreign body: a summary of the evidence and proposed management process.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2021
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Foreign body ingestion: dos and don'ts.Frontline gastroenterology · 2021
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Emergency care of esophageal foreign body impactions: timing, treatment modalities, and resource utilization.Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus
    Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Gabriele I KirchnerDepartment of Internal Medicine I, University Hospital of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany. Gabriele.Kirchner@Klinik.uni-regensburg.de
Ina Zuber-Jerger
Esther Endlicher
Cornelia Gelbmann
Claudia Ott
Petra Ruemmele
Jürgen Schölmerich
Frank Klebl
University Hospital Regensburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBolus impaction in the esophagus is a common indication for emergency endoscopy. The aim of this study was to determine the most common causes of esophageal bolus impaction.

methodsIn this retrospective study, data of 54 patients (41 male, 13 female) with bolus impaction in the esophagus were analyzed. Type and localization of the bolus and the endoscopic extraction tool used were evaluated. In 48 of 54 patients (89%), biopsy samples were taken of the esophagus for histological examination.

resultsMean age of the patients was 53 ± 20 years. Fourteen of 54 patients (26%) had experienced bolus impaction previously. Meat bolus (n = 35, 65%) was the most common cause of esophageal obstruction. In most cases, boluses were found in either the distal (n = 31) or the proximal (n = 18) esophagus. In 22 patients (41%), the bolus was pushed into the stomach by the endoscope. In most other cases the bolus, including foreign bodies, could be removed with the 5-arm polyp grasper or alligator forceps. Main causes of bolus impaction were eosinophilic esophagitis (n = 10) or reflux disease with or without peptic stenosis (n = 10), respectively.

conclusionBolus impaction is frequently correlated with eosinophilic esophagitis and reflux esophagitis; therefore, diagnostic workup should include esophageal biopsy sampling.

Indexed as

EsophagoscopyEsophagusAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBiopsyEosinophilic EsophagitisEsophageal StenosisFemaleForeign BodiesGastroesophageal RefluxHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID21487866
OpenAlexW2027347741

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.