ReviewGastroenterology research2018
Novel Surgical Treatments for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: Systematic Review of Magnetic Sphincter Augmentation and Electric Stimulation Therapy.
Review in Gastroenterology research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Electric stimulation therapy (EST) and magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) represent novel methods for the surgical treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The aim of this review was to assess the effectiveness and safety of EST and magnetic sphincter augmentation device (MSAD) comapred to laparoscopic fundoplication (LF) and proton pump inhibitor therapy (in case of EST). We performed a systematic literature search without restrictions on publication dates in five electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane library, PubMed, and Centre for Reviews and Dissemination), complemented by hand search, search in trial registries, and documentation provided by the manufacturers. No study passed inclusion criteria for analyzing EST effectiveness. Concerning safety, lead erosion through the esophagus and trocar perforation of the small bowel occurred in 2.4% of patients (in one study). Only the registry study fulfilled inclusion criteria for effectiveness analysis of MSAD. The crucial outcome of GERD-health-related quality of life (HRQL) score improved from 20 to 3 points in MSAD patients, and from 23 to 3.5 points in LF patients. However, the LF patients were in a more severe stage of the disease. The results yield indefinite conclusions about the use of both MSAD and EST. Clinical effectiveness and safety of both MSAD and EST are not sufficiently proven and are yet to be supported by high quality evidence from randomized controlled trials.
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.