ArticleSurgical endoscopy2014
A proposed classification for uniform endoscopic description of surgical fundoplication.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Gatherings in Esophagology: Innovations and Future Directions in the Diagnosis and Management of Reflux Disease.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2026Article
- Endoscopic assessment of failed fundoplications differs between endoscopists.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Assessment of laparoscopic fundoplication with endoscopy: room for improvement.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- ENDOSCOPIC EVALUATION OF POST-FUNDOPLICATION ANATOMY AND CORRELATION WITH SYMPTOMATOLOGY.Arquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery · 2021Article
- Endoscopic Evaluation of Post-Fundoplication Anatomy.Current gastroenterology reports · 2017Review
- Association of Body Mass Index (BMI) with Patterns of Fundoplication Failure: Insights Gained.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundObjective assessment of postfundoplication anatomy is of utmost importance especially if reoperative intervention is being planned. There is a lack of uniformity in the description of endoscopic findings in these patients.The purpose of this study was to propose a classification for standardized endoscopic reporting of postfundoplication anatomy.
methodsAfter institutional review board approval, preoperative endoscopic findings of patients who underwent reoperative intervention from 1992 to 2011 were reviewed a nd classified. The classification included four factors:E (distance of GEJ to crus), S (amount of gastric tissue between the GEJ and fundoplication), F (fundoplication configuration), and P (paraesophageal hernia).
resultsThe endoscopic findings of 310 patients who underwent reoperative antireflux surgery were classified using the newly proposed classification model. A significant increase in the number of procedures was noted over the years.There was no change in presenting symptoms and patterns of failure over the years. The classification model was easily applicable to previous endoscopy reports. There was good symptom association with our classification model. DISCUSSION: An endoscopic anatomical classification is proposed for description of failed fundoplication. With this classification, we hope to fill the gap in developing a uniform classification of failed fundoplications. Further studies addressing widespread applicability and outcome analysis are needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24232048What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.