ReviewInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2018
Esophageal perforation: a research review of the anti-infective treatment.
Review in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outcomes after esophageal perforation: A tertiary referral center series.Surgery today · 2026Article
- Article
- Consideration of Antifungal Coverage in Treating Infections Related to Delayed Esophageal Perforation from Anterior Cervical Spine Hardware.Infectious disease reports · 2024Article
- Routine nasogastric tube placement in patients with small esophageal perforation after endoscopic foreign body removal may be unnecessary: a propensity score matching analysis.Gastroenterology report · 2023Article
- Esophageal emergencies: WSES guidelines.World journal of emergency surgery : WJES · 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
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Esophageal perforation is a complex disease state and often difficult to diagnose due to the variability in patient presentation. The chosen anti-infective treatment and duration of anti-infective therapy that patients with esophageal perforation receive has been inconsistent. Choice of anti-infective treatment and duration of therapy may also be highly variable from institution to institution, and can even vary by provider. To our knowledge, there has not been a publication reviewing esophageal perforation with a specific focus on pharmacologic management. Aim of the review The aim of this study is to summarize pertinent research articles focused on the anti-infective treatment of adult patients diagnosed with esophageal perforation. Method Pubmed electronic database was utilized to search for articles meeting pre-defined criteria. Articles were included in this review if they discussed at least 1 of the following 3 criteria: choice of anti-infective treatment regimen, duration of anti-infective therapy, or identification of organisms growing from cultures associated with the esophageal perforation. Results Seventy-seven articles included information related to our research question. No randomized-controlled trials were identified and only 7 identified articles reported all 3 criteria of interest. Conclusion Review of the literature from 1979 to 2017 reveals the need for high quality evidence related to anti-infective treatment in patients diagnosed with esophageal perforation.
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.