SynthesisThe British journal of surgery2020
Systematic review of the introduction and evaluation of magnetic augmentation of the lower oesophageal sphincter for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease.
Synthesis in The British journal of surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 7 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Continuity of outcome assessment throughout the lifecycle of surgical research: mapping core outcome domains measured in early phase and late phase studies.BMC surgery · 2025Pooled it
- A systematic methodology review of fluorescence-guided cancer surgery to inform the development of a core master protocol and outcome set.BMC cancer · 2024Pooled it
- Readiness for implementation of novel digital health interventions for postoperative monitoring: a systematic review and clinical innovation network analysis.The Lancet. Digital health · 2023Pooled it
- A systematic review of robot-assisted anti-reflux surgery to examine reporting standards.Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Systematic Review of Innovation Reporting in Endoscopic Sleeve Gastroplasty.Obesity surgery · 2021Pooled it
- Systematic review of the introduction, early phase study and evaluation of pyrocarbon proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty.PloS one · 2021Pooled it
- Protocol for the GOLF trial: randomized clinical trial on the LINX management system versus fundoplication for the surgical treatment of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease.The British journal of surgery · 2025Article
- Article
- Results of the ARROW survey of anti-reflux practice in the United Kingdom.Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus · 2023Article
- Removal of the magnetic sphincter augmentation device: an assessment of etiology, clinical presentation, and management.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Healthcare organization policy recommendations for the governance of surgical innovation: review of NHS policies.The British journal of surgery · 2022Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMagnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) is reported to be an innovative alternative to antireflux surgery for patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Although used in practice, little is known about how it has been evaluated. This study aimed to systematically summarize and appraise the reporting of MSA and its introduction into clinical practice, in the context of guidelines (such as IDEAL) for evaluating innovative surgical devices.
methodsSystematic searches were used to identify all published studies reporting MSA insertion. Data collected included patient selection, governance arrangements, surgeon expertise, technique description and outcome reporting.
resultsSearches identified 587 abstracts; 39 full-text papers were included (1 RCT 5 cohort, 3 case-control, 25 case series, 5 case reports). Twenty-one followed US Food and Drug Administration eligibility criteria for MSA insertion. Twenty-six documented that ethical approval was obtained. Two reported that participating surgeons received training in MSA; 18 provided information about how MSA insertion was performed, although techniques varied between studies. Follow-up ranged from 4 weeks to 5 years; in 14 studies, it was less than 1 year.
conclusionMost studies on MSA lacked information about patient selection, governance, expertise, techniques and outcomes, or varied between studies. Currently, MSA is being used despite a lack of robust evidence for its effectiveness.
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.