Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27807447›Full record

ReviewGastroenterology research and practice2016

Endoscopic Management of Foreign Bodies in the Gastrointestinal Tract: A Review of the Literature.

Mikhael Bekkerman, Amit H Sachdev, Javier Andrade, Yitzhak Twersky, Shahzad Iqbal

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Gastroenterology research and practice, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 63 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
63citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

63 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Anorectal emergencies: WSES-AAST guidelines.World journal of emergency surgery : WJES · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Conservative management of oesophageal soft food bolus impaction.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Self-Harm-Associated Gastrointestinal Foreign Bodies: National Patterns of Management and Outcomes.Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Modern endoscopist's toolbox: Innovations in foreign body removal.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2025
    Review

3 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors.

Mikhael BekkermanLake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine and St. John's Episcopal Hospital, Erie, PA, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2201-6874
Amit H SachdevSUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4576-8334
Javier AndradeDepartment of Surgery, St. John's Episcopal Hospital, Far Rockaway, NY, USA.
Yitzhak TwerskySt. John's Episcopal Hospital, Far Rockaway, NY, USA.
Shahzad IqbalSUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Foreign body ingestion is a common diagnosis that presents in emergency departments throughout the world. Distinct foreign bodies predispose to particular locations of impaction in the gastrointestinal tract, commonly meat boluses in the esophagus above a preexisting esophageal stricture or ring in adults and coins in children. Several other groups are at high risk of foreign body impaction, mentally handicapped individuals or those with psychiatric illness, abusers of drugs or alcohol, and the geriatric population. Patients with foreign body ingestion typically present with odynophagia, dysphagia, sensation of having an object stuck, chest pain, and nausea/vomiting. The majority of foreign bodies pass through the digestive system spontaneously without causing any harm, symptoms, or necessitating any further intervention. A well-documented clinical history and thorough physical exam is critical in making the diagnosis, if additional modalities are needed, a CT scan and diagnostic endoscopy are generally the preferred modalities. Various tools can be used to remove foreign bodies, and endoscopic treatment is safe and effective if performed by a skilled endoscopist.

Identifiers

PMID27807447
PMCPMC5078654

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.