ReviewWorld journal of surgery2015
Laparoscopic Heller myotomy for achalasia: does the age of the patient affect the outcome?
Review in World journal of surgery, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Peroral endoscopic myotomy is a safe and effective treatment modality for geriatric patients with achalasia.Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Esophageal achalasia is the most common primary motility disorder of the esophageal body and lower esophageal sphincter. The optimal management strategy for elderly patients with achalasia remains inconclusive, however elderly patients are still more likely to be recommended for endoscopic treatments rather than LHM, due to a perception of increased surgical risk in these patients. Advantages of surgical myotomy in the elderly over pneumatic dilation are: 1. the risk of mucosal perforation during surgery is better controlled than after endoscopic balloon dilatation and 2. the greater efficacy for the surgical approach where only one procedure is routinely required whereas pneumatic dilation often requires repeat treatment to achieve long-term relief of symptoms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.