Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26121646›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2015

A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials to Compare Long-Term Outcomes of Nissen and Toupet Fundoplication for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease.

Zhi-chao Tian, Bin Wang, Cheng-xiang Shan, Wei Zhang, Dao-zhen Jiang, Ming Qiu

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
7.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 111 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Guideline
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Zhi-chao TianDepartment of General Surgery of Changzheng Hospital affiliated to Second Military Medical University, No.415 Fengyang road, Shanghai, 200003 China.
Bin WangDepartment of General Surgery of Changzheng Hospital affiliated to Second Military Medical University, No.415 Fengyang road, Shanghai, 200003 China.
Cheng-xiang ShanDepartment of General Surgery of Changzheng Hospital affiliated to Second Military Medical University, No.415 Fengyang road, Shanghai, 200003 China.
Wei ZhangDepartment of General Surgery of Changzheng Hospital affiliated to Second Military Medical University, No.415 Fengyang road, Shanghai, 200003 China.
Dao-zhen JiangDepartment of General Surgery of Changzheng Hospital affiliated to Second Military Medical University, No.415 Fengyang road, Shanghai, 200003 China.
Ming QiuDepartment of General Surgery of Changzheng Hospital affiliated to Second Military Medical University, No.415 Fengyang road, Shanghai, 200003 China.
Second Military Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimIn recent years, several studies with large sample sizes and recent follow-up data have been published comparing outcomes between laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication and laparoscopic Toupet fundoplication. It is now timely to be re-evaluated and synthesized long-term efficacy and adverse events of both total and partial posterior fundoplication. MATERIALS AND

methodsElectronic searches for RCTs comparing the outcome after laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication and laparoscopic Toupet fundoplication were performed in the databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Center Register of Controlled Trials. The data of evaluation in positive and adverse results of laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication and laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication were extracted and compared using meta-analysis.

results13 RCTs were ultimately identified involving 814 (52.05%) and 750 (47.95%) patients who underwent laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication and laparoscopic Toupet fundoplication, respectively. The operative time, perioperative complications, postoperative satisfaction, recurrence, and the rates of medication adoption or re-operation due to recurrence were not significantly different between two groups. The two types of fundoplication both reinforced the anti-reflux barrier and elevated the lower esophageal sphincter pressure. However, rates of adverse results involving dysphasia, gas-bloat syndrome, inability to belch and re-operation due to severe dysphasia were significantly higher after LNF. In the subgroup analysis of wrap length≤2 cm, laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication was associated with a significantly higher incidence of postoperative dysphagia. However, in the subgroup wrap length>2 cm, the difference was not statistically significant.

conclusionLaparoscopic Toupet fundoplication might be the better surgery approach for gastroesophageal reflux disease with a lower rate of postoperative adverse results and equal effectiveness as Laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication.

Indexed as

FundoplicationRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicDeglutition DisordersEsophageal Sphincter, LowerFemaleGastroesophageal RefluxGastrointestinal MotilityHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient SatisfactionPerioperative CarePostoperative ComplicationsPressureTime FactorsTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID26121646
PMCPMC4484805
OpenAlexW1510852831

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.