ReviewClinical and experimental gastroenterology2016
Electrical stimulation for gastroesophageal reflux disease: current state of the art.
Review in Clinical and experimental gastroenterology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Wirelessly powered deformable electronic stent for noninvasive electrical stimulation of lower esophageal sphincter.Science advances · 2023Article
- Recent advances in third space or intramural endoscopy.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2020Review
- Novel Therapies for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: Beyond Proton Pump Inhibitors.Current gastroenterology reports · 2020Review
- Advances in the Diagnosis and Treatment of GERD: New Tricks for an Old Disease.Current treatment options in gastroenterology · 2019Review
- Wirelessly Powered Endoscopically Implantable Devices into the Submucosa as the Possible Treatment of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease.Gastroenterology research and practice · 2019Article
- Management of gastroesophageal reflux disease in adults: a pharmacist's perspective.Integrated pharmacy research & practice · 2018Review
- [Surgical and interventional procedures for reflux therapy : Endoscopic or laparoscopic?]Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2017Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) who are not satisfied with acid suppression therapy can benefit primarily from fundoplication, a surgical intervention. Fundoplication has been the standard surgical procedure for GERD. It is effective but is associated with adverse effects, resulting in a declining number of interventions, creating a need for alternative interventions that are effective, yet have a better adverse effect profile. One such alternative involves the application of electrical stimulation to the lower esophageal sphincter. A number of animal studies showed that such stimulation can increase resting lower esophageal sphincter pressure. An acute human study confirmed this effect, and was followed by two open-label studies, with a follow-up of up to 3 years. Results thus far show that the therapy is associated with a significant improvement in symptoms, a significant reduction in esophageal acid exposure, and a very good safety profile. This review will describe the evolution of electrical stimulation therapy for GERD, as well as the safety and efficacy of this intervention.
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.