Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30705950›Full record

ArticleEndoscopy international open2019

Treatment of refractory post-esophagectomy anastomotic esophageal strictures using temporary fully covered esophageal metal stenting compared to repeated bougie dilation: results of a randomized controlled trial.

W F Kappelle, J E van Hooft, M C W Spaander, F P Vleggaar, M J Bruno, F Maluf-Filho, A Bogte, E van Halsema, P D Siersema

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Endoscopy international open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Stricture Following Esophageal Reconstruction.The Korean journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2020
    Article
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

9 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

W F KappelleUniversity Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
J E van HooftAcademic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
M C W SpaanderErasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
F P VleggaarUniversity Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
M J BrunoErasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
F Maluf-FilhoInstituto do Cancer do Estado de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
A BogteUniversity Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
E van HalsemaAcademic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
P D SiersemaUniversity Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
University Medical Center Utrecht · NLAcademic Medical Center · NLErasmus MC · NLInstituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo · BRRadboud University Nijmegen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Identifiers

PMID30705950
PMCPMC6338544
OpenAlexW2910047860

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.