Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31261541›Full record

ArticleMedicine2019

Delayed endoscopic removal of sharp foreign body in the esophagus increased clinical complications: An experience from multiple centers in China.

Jingjing Yuan, Mengjie Ma, Yang Guo, Bili He, Zhenzhai Cai, Bin Ye, Lei Xu, Jiang Liu, Jin Ding, Zhongfa Zheng and 2 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Conservative management of oesophageal soft food bolus impaction.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Management of patients who ingest razor blades: a singlecenter experience.Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Esophagus Impaction and Perforation by Jujube: A Tale of Double Trouble.Middle East journal of digestive diseases · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

12 authors.

Jingjing YuanDepartment of Gastroenterology, Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine.
Mengjie MaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine.
Yang GuoDepartment of Gastroenterology, Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine.
Bili HeDepartment of Gastroenterology, Taizhou Hospital of Zhejiang Province, Taizhou.
Zhenzhai CaiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Second Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou.
Bin YeDepartment of Gastroenterology, Central Hospital of Lishui City, Lishui.
Lei XuDepartment of Gastroenterology, Ningbo First Hospital, Ningbo.
Jiang LiuDepartment of Gastroenterology, Central Hospital of Huzhou City, Huzhou.
Jin DingDepartment of Gastroenterology, Central Hospital of Jinhua City, Jinhua.
Zhongfa ZhengDepartment of Gastroenterology, Kecheng Hospital of Quzhou City, Quzhou.
Jianhua DuanDepartment of Gastroenterology, Second Hospital of Shaoxing City, Shaoxing, Zhejiang Province, China.
Liangjing WangDepartment of Gastroenterology, Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Foreign bodies impaction in the esophagus is a common clinical emergency. The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical features of foreign body ingestion, and to analyze the risk factors of complications during the endoscopic procedure.From 18 general hospitals in Zhejiang Province in China, 595 patients who underwent gastroscopic removal of ingested foreign bodies were prospectively recruited. Patient characteristics, clinical features, foreign body features, clinical outcomes, and complications were documented.The most common types of foreign body in the esophagus were sharp objects (75.9%), including fish bones (34.0%), chicken bones (22.1%), and fruit nuclei (17.1%). The remaining types were non-sharp objects (24.1%), including food bolus (14.6%). Most objects were lodged in the proximal esophagus (75.9%). Foreign body-related complications occurred in 63 patients (10.5%), including hemorrhage (5.0%), perforation and infection (5.5%). The complication rate was increased by 4.04- and 8.48- fold when endoscopic retrieval was performed after impacted for over 24 and 48 hours, respectively, after impaction, as compared with within 12 hours. Logistic regression analysis revealed that the patients with sharp objects developed more complications than those with non-sharp ones (odds ratio, 2.85; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-7.50; P = .034). However, complications were unrelated with the location in the esophagus or length of foreign bodies (P > .05).Sharp objects were the most frequently ingested foreign bodies in the esophagus in China. The prevalence of complications was increased in the patients with long foreign body retention time (>24 hours) and sharp objects. Sharp foreign bodies in the esophagus are recommended to be removed within 24 hours.

Indexed as

EsophagoscopyAdolescentAdultChinaEsophagusFemaleForeign BodiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsRisk FactorsTime-to-TreatmentYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID31261541
PMCPMC6617444

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.