SynthesisWorld journal of emergency surgery : WJES2018
Flexible versus rigid endoscopy in the management of esophageal foreign body impaction: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in World journal of emergency surgery : WJES, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 4 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
40 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Diaphragmatic herniation after esophagogastric surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2021Pooled it
- Laparoscopic Sleeve-Fundoplication for Morbidly Obese Patients with Gastroesophageal Reflux: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Obesity surgery · 2021Pooled it
- Esophageal Lipoma and Liposarcoma: A Systematic Review.World journal of surgery · 2021Pooled it
- Conservative management of oesophageal soft food bolus impaction.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Management of dental-origin gastrointestinal foreign bodies: a proposed site-based, risk-stratified framework for multidisciplinary care.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Review
- Endoscopic ultrasound vascular parameter-based stratification for precise treatment of esophagogastric varices: a study on endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue glue obliteration.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Deconstructing Risk: A Machine Learning-Guided Logistic Regression Model for Predicting Early Mucosal Edema Following Prophylactic Ileostomy in Elderly Rectal Cancer Patients.International journal of general medicine · 2026Article
- Oesophageal Soft Food Bolus Obstruction: A Retrospective Review of the Management of 384 Cases in Two UK Hospitals.Cureus · 2025Article
- Esophagus Impaction and Perforation by Jujube: A Tale of Double Trouble.Middle East journal of digestive diseases · 2025Article
- Article
- Endoscopic techniques and factors for complications in pediatric esophageal foreign body removal.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2025Article
- Underlying Diagnosis of Food Bolus Obstruction Acute Admissions to Otorhinolaryngology: A Shift to Provide the Best Care as per the Current Guidelines.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Successful esophagotomy after failed attempts of esophagoscopic retrieval of impacted denture.Radiology case reports · 2025Article
- Development and validation of a nomogram-based model to predict combined esophageal injury post-esophagoscopy for esophageal foreign bodies.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Complex Management of a Migrating Inhaled Metallic Foreign Body in a Child: A Multidisciplinary Success.Cureus · 2024Article
- Esophageal button battery impactions in children: an analysis of 89 cases.BMC pediatrics · 2024Article
- Rigid Esophagoscopy for Foreign Body Extraction: Results and Complications in the Endoscopic Era.Cureus · 2024Article
- Endoscopic esophageal foreign body removal among children at Lubaga Hospital, Kampala, Uganda.African health sciences · 2023Article
- Management of oesophageal foreign bodies in children: a 10-year retrospective analysis from a tertiary care center.BMC emergency medicine · 2022Article
- Safety and feasibility of single use cholecystoscopy for guiding laser or mechanical cholelithotripsy, and mechanical cholelithotomy.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2022Article
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
Background: Foreign body (FB) impaction accounts for 4% of emergency endoscopies in clinical practice. Flexible endoscopy (FE) is recommended as the first-line therapeutic option because it can be performed under sedation, is cost-effective, and is well tolerated. Rigid endoscopy (RE) under general anesthesia is less used but may be advantageous in some circumstances. The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy and safety of FE and RE in esophageal FB removal. Methods: PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were consulted matching the terms "Rigid endoscopy AND Flexible endoscopy AND foreign bod*". Pooled effect measures were calculated using an inverse-variance weighted or Mantel-Haenszel in random effects meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was evaluated using Results: Five observational cohort studies, published between 1993 and 2015, matched the inclusion criteria. One thousand four hundred and two patients were included; FE was performed in 736 patients and RE in 666. Overall, 101 (7.2%) complications occurred. The most frequent complications were mucosal erosion (26.7%), mucosal edema (18.8%), and iatrogenic esophageal perforations (10.9%). Compared to FE, the estimated RE pooled success OR was 1.00 (95% CI 0.48-2.06; Conclusions: FE and RE are equally safe and effective for the removal of esophageal FB. To provide a tailored or crossover approach, patients should be managed in multidisciplinary centers where expertise in RE is also available. Formal training and certification in RE should probably be re-evaluated.
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.