ArticlePeerJ2019
Evaluation of the extent of damage to the esophageal wall caused by press-through package ingestion.
Article in PeerJ, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Unintentional Plastic Blister Ingestion Leading to Intestinal Perforation: A Report of Two Cases.The American journal of case reports · 2024Article
- A loop cutter is an ideal gripper for endoscopic removal of press-through-package sheets.Endoscopy · 2023Article
- Esophageal perforation and septic shock after accidental coin ingestion in elderly person.Clinical case reports · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Press-through package (PTP) is the most common accidentally ingested foreign body in Japan. Accidental ingestion of PTP can result in esophageal damage. An approach for evaluating the risk of esophageal injury has not been established. Therefore, we used porcine esophageal tissue and silicone sheets to establish a method for assessing the risk of esophageal damage on accidental PTP ingestion. We pathologically evaluated porcine lower esophageal tissue using a scratch tester. Using porcine esophageal tissue, scratch tests were performed with 4 test objects and pathological damage was compared. It was assumed that each object was accidentally ingested. The objects were polyvinylidene chloride (PVDC)-coated polyvinyl chloride (PVC) PTP, soft PThPa, round PTP, and a disposable scalpel. The porcine esophagus was replaced with a silicon sheet, and an automatic friction machine was used for quantitative evaluation. The silicon sheet was scratched using HHS 2000 with 750-g load at 50 mm/min. We investigated the frictional force exerted on the surface for each of the objects. The degree of damage (depth) was the highest for the disposable scalpel, followed by PVDC-coated PVC PTP, while the degree of damage (depth) was the lowest for soft PThPa and round PTP. The mean frictional forces on the silicon sheet were 524.0 gf with PVDC-coated PTP, 323.5 gf with soft PThPa, 288.7 gf with round PTP, and 922.7 gf with the disposable scalpel. We developed approaches to qualitatively and quantitatively evaluate the risk of esophageal damage after accidental PTP ingestion. Our findings indicate that the risk of gastrointestinal damage after accidental PTP ingestion is low with soft PTP and round PTP.
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.