Observational studyMedicine2015
Clinical Effect of Endoscopic Pneumatic Dilation for Achalasia.
Observational study in Medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy and safety of pneumatic dilation in achalasia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Neurogastroenterology and motility · 2019Pooled it
- Examining effects of habitual physical activity and body composition on bone structure in early post-menopausal women: a pQCT analysis.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although pneumatic dilation is an accepted method for the treatment of achalasia, this therapy has high recurrence and complication rates, and prolonged follow-up studies on the parameters associated with various outcomes are rare. In this prospective 10-year follow-up study, a satisfactory therapeutic effect was achieved without serious complications. We report the therapeutic experience with pneumatic dilation, having aimed to evaluate the long-term clinical safety and efficacy of pneumatic dilation. In total, 35 consecutive patients with idiopathic achalasia who underwent pneumatic dilation were followed up at regular intervals in person or by a phone interview over a 10-year period. The mean duration of the follow-up was 43.03 ± 26.34 months (range 6-120 months). Remission was assessed by the dysphagia classification and symptom scores. Patients' clinical symptom scores were calculated before and at 6 to 36 months, 37 to 60 months, and >60 months after therapy. The influence of the patients' age, gender, and disease duration on the therapeutic effect was analyzed. The success rate of the operation was 97.2% (35/36), without massive hemorrhaging, perforation or other serious complications. Dysphagia after the therapy was significantly eased (P < 0.01). In total, 35 patients have been followed up for 6 to 36 months after therapy, 21 cases for 37 to 60 months, and 5 cases for >60 months, and the patients' symptom scores separately decreased significantly compared with the pretherapy scores (P < 0.01). For these patients, the 6 to 36 months remission rate was 85.7% (30/35), the 37 to 60 months rate was 61.9% (13/21), and the >60 months rate was 40% (2/5). The dilation effect had no relationship to the patient's age, gender, and disease duration (P > 0.05). The patients in 30 cases (85.7%) were successfully treated with a single dilation, in 4 cases (11.4%) with 2 dilations, and in 1 case (2.9%) with 3 dilations. These results suggest that endoscopic pneumatic dilation is an achalasia therapy with a good response; it is a simple and safe procedure with long-term clinical effectiveness. It is a preferred method in the treatment of achalasia.
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.