Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28461094›Full record

SynthesisGastrointestinal endoscopy2017

Esophageal dilation with either bougie or balloon technique as a treatment for eosinophilic esophagitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Michael Dougherty, Thomas M Runge, Swathi Eluri, Evan S Dellon

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Gastrointestinal endoscopy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
7.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

54 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 119 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Guideline
  4. Guideline
  5. Guideline
  6. Guideline
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Endoscopic response to topical steroids is associated with a need for fewer future esophageal dilations.Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus · 2025
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Michael DoughertyCenter for Esophageal Disease and Swallowing and Center for Gastrointestinal Biology and Disease, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Thomas M RungeCenter for Esophageal Disease and Swallowing and Center for Gastrointestinal Biology and Disease, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Swathi EluriCenter for Esophageal Disease and Swallowing and Center for Gastrointestinal Biology and Disease, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Evan S DellonCenter for Esophageal Disease and Swallowing and Center for Gastrointestinal Biology and Disease, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

PILOT AND FEASIBILITY STUDIESP30DK034987 · NIDDK · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI Temitope O. Keku · 1985 to 2026
$30.5M
DIGESTIVE DISEASES EPIDEMIOLOGY TRAINING PROGRAMT32DK007634 · NIDDK · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI ROBERT S. SANDLER · 1990 to 2026
$7.4M
Budesonide versus fluticasone for treatment of eosinophilic esophagitisR01DK101856 · NIDDK · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI DELLON, EVAN SAMUEL · 2014 to 2018
$1.7M
NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK034987NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK101856NIDDK NIH HHS T32 DK007634
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsEsophageal dilation is a now recognized to be an important therapeutic modality in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). We aimed to evaluate the safety of esophageal dilation in EoE, especially regarding perforation risk, and to examine perforation risk by dilator type.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review of the published literature from January 1, 1950 to June 30, 2016 using PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science. Studies were included if they described patients with EoE who underwent elective esophageal dilation and also reported the presence or absence of at least 1 adverse event (eg, perforation, bleeding, pain, or hospitalization). We used random-effects meta-analysis to estimate the frequency of each adverse event.

resultsOf 923 identified articles, 37 met inclusion criteria and represented 2034 dilations in 977 patients. On meta-analysis, postprocedure hospitalization occurred in .689% of dilations (95% confidence interval [CI], 0%-1.42%), clinically significant GI hemorrhage in .028% (95% CI, 0%-.217%), and clinically significant chest pain in 3.64% (95% CI, 1.73%-5.55%). Nine perforations were documented, at a rate of .033% (95% CI, 0%-.226%) per procedure after meta-analysis. None of the perforations resulted in surgical intervention or mortality. Most (5/9) were reported before 2009 (rate, .41% [95% CI, 0%-2.75%]); from 2009 forward the rate was .030% (95% CI, 0%-.225%). Dilation method was described in 30 studies (1957 dilations), in which 4 perforations were detected. The estimated perforation rate for bougies was .022% (95% CI, 0%-.347%) and for balloons was .059% (95% CI, 0%-.374%).

conclusionsPerforation from esophageal dilation in EoE is rare, and there is no evidence of a significant difference in perforation risk related to dilator type. Esophageal dilation should be considered a safe procedure in EoE.

Indexed as

Chest PainDilatationEosinophilic EsophagitisEsophageal PerforationEsophagoscopyGastrointestinal HemorrhageHospitalizationHumansPostoperative ComplicationsPostoperative HemorrhagePostoperative Pain

Identifiers

PMID28461094
PMCPMC5601027
OpenAlexW2609031603

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.