Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31898587›Full record

ReviewEndoscopic ultrasound

EUS-guided gastroenterostomy for the management of gastric outlet obstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Umair Iqbal, Harshit S Khara, Yirui Hu, Vikas Kumar, Kashif Tufail, Bradley Confer, David L Diehl

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Endoscopic ultrasound. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 72 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
72citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
16.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

72 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 149 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Endoscopic salvage for afferent loop syndrome: the antegrade lumen-apposing metal stent technique.VideoGIE : an official video journal of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · 2026
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article

12 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Umair IqbalDepartment of Internal Medicine, Geisinger Commonwealth School of Medicine, Danville, PA, USA.
Harshit S KharaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, PA, USA.
Yirui HuGeisinger Medical Center, Biomedical and Translational Informatics Institute, Danville, PA, USA.
Vikas KumarDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, PA, USA.
Kashif TufailDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, PA, USA.
Bradley ConferDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, PA, USA.
David L DiehlDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, PA, USA.
Geisinger Medical Center · USCommonwealth Medical College · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) is characterized by epigastric pain and postprandial vomiting secondary to mechanical obstruction. Management of GOO is usually focused on alleviating the symptoms of obstruction and can be achieved by surgical gastrojejunostomy or enteral stenting. Recent studies have shown success with EUS-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) in the management of GOO but data is limited. We, therefore, conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of EUS-GE in the management of GOO. A comprehensive literature review was conducted by searching the Embase and PubMed databases from inception to January 2019 to identify all studies that evaluate the efficacy and safety of EUS-GE in GOO. Our primary outcome was to evaluate technical success and clinical success. Secondary outcomes were to evaluate the need for reintervention and adverse events of the procedure. Twelve studies including 285 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Technical success was achieved in 266 patients with a pooled technical success of 92% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 88%-95%). Clinical success was achieved in 90% of the patients (95% CI: 85%-94%). Recurrence of symptoms or unplanned reintervention was needed in 9% of the patients (95% CI: 6%-13%) and adverse events were reported in 12% of the patients (95% CI: 8%-16%). The heterogeneity tests among studies were nonsignificant with I

Indexed as

enteral stentingEUSgastric outlet obstructiongastroenterostomygastrojejunostomy

Identifiers

PMID31898587
PMCPMC7038736
OpenAlexW2998049831

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.