SynthesisMedicine2016
Per-Oral Endoscopic Myotomy Versus Laparoscopic Heller Myotomy for Achalasia: A Meta-Analysis of Nonrandomized Comparative Studies.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 6 of them syntheses 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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Comprehensive evaluation of current strategies in achalasia treatment: Insights from an umbrella review.Medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Achalasia: laparoscopic Heller myotomy with fundoplication versus peroral endoscopic myotomy-a systematic review and meta-analysis.Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 2024Pooled it
- Pneumatic balloon dilatation versus laparoscopic Heller myotomy for achalasia: a failed attempt at meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Pooled it
- European guidelines on achalasia: United European Gastroenterology and European Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility recommendations.United European gastroenterology journal · 2020Guideline
- Updated Systematic Review of Achalasia, with a Focus on POEM Therapy.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2020Pooled it
- Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for the treatment of pediatric achalasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2019Pooled it
- Endoscopy versus radiology in post-procedural monitoring after peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM).Surgical endoscopy · 2018Trial
- Review
- When is POEM truly equivalent to LHM? A comparison of complication rates during the learning curve.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Changes in impedance planimetry (EndoFLIP) measurements at follow-up after peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM).Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Changes in Distensibility Index During an Incremental POEM Myotomy.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2022Article
- Endoscopic Management of GERD.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2022Review
- Peroral endoscopic myotomy is equally safe and highly effective treatment option in achalasia patients with both lower and higher ASA classification status.Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 2021Article
- Intraoperative impedance planimetry (EndoFLIP™) results and development of esophagitis in patients undergoing peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM).Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
- Long-term outcomes of per-oral endoscopic myotomy compared to laparoscopic Heller myotomy for achalasia: a single-center experience.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
- How does per-oral endoscopic myotomy compare to Heller myotomy? The Latin American perspective.Endoscopy international open · 2020Article
- Statement for gastroesophageal reflux disease after peroral endoscopic myotomy from an international multicenter experience.Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 2020Article
- Esophageal Dysphagia in the Elderly.Current treatment options in gastroenterology · 2019Review
- Achalasia: treatment, current status and future advances.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2019Review
- Endoscopic foregut surgery and interventions: The future is now. The state-of-the-art and my personal journey.World journal of gastroenterology · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We aimed to assess the short-term outcomes of per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) compared with laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM) for achalasia through a meta-analysis of nonrandomized comparative studies.We searched PubMed, Embase, Medline, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar for studies that compared POEM and LHM for achalasia and were published between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2014. The Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS) was used to evaluate the quality of the studies. Random- and fixed-effects meta-analytical models were used, and between-study heterogeneity was assessed.Four nonrandomized comparative studies that included 317 patients (125 in the POEM group and 192 in the LHM group) met our research criteria and were assessed. There were no differences between the POEM and LHM groups in terms of sex, preoperative Eckhart score, length of myotomy, operation time, length of hospital stay, and complications. The patients in the POEM group were older than those in the LHM group (MD =2.81, 95% CI 0.27-5.35; P = 0.03) with high between-study homogeneity (χ = 1.96, df = 2, I = 0%; P = 0.38). The patients in the POEM group had a lower Eckardt score after surgery compared with those in the LHM group (MD = -0.30, 95% CI -0.42 to -0.18; P < 0.001) with high between-study homogeneity (χ = 0.00, df = 1, I = 0%; P = 1.00).The efficacy and safety of POEM appear to be comparable to those of LHM. Multicenter and randomized trials with larger sample size are needed to further compare the efficacy and safety of POEM and LHM for 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.