Observational studyMedicine2020
Simultaneous double balloon dilatation using double channel therapeutic endoscope in patients with cricopharyngeal muscle dysfunction: An observative study.
Observational study in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety of a Novel Upper Esophageal Sphincter Balloon Dilator.The Laryngoscope · 2025Article
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The role of endoscopic balloon dilatation (EBD) using double-balloon catheters in patients with cricopharyngeal muscle dysfunction (CPD) is still unclear. Thus, the aim of this study was to compare the functional outcomes between patients receiving EBD and rehabilitative balloon swallowing (RBS).A total of 36 patients with CPD, who visited a teaching hospital from February 2014 to June 2017, were included in the study. Among them, 12 patients with severe dysphagia underwent EBD. After propensity score matching, 24 patients who underwent RBS were selected for comparison. We compared the effects of EBD and RBS using 4 functional swallowing parameters: functional dysphagia scale score, penetration-aspiration scale score, pharyngeal transit time, and percentage of pharyngeal remnant (PR) at baseline and after the first and second treatments. Using simple and multiple regression, we examined the associations between EBD/RBS and changes of 4 parameters after the treatments since the baselineAll functional parameters significantly decreased after RBS and EBD (P < .05). After the first therapy session, significant differences in the pharyngeal transit time (P = .034), percentage of PR (P = .008), and penetration-aspiration scale score (P = .014) were observed in the EBD group, compared with those in the RBS group. The regression analysis showed significant improvements in the PR after EBD compared with that after RBS (β = 0.95, SE = 0.31, P = .005).EBD may be an alternative treatment for patients with severe CPD. A significant improvement would be expected in such patients with PR.
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.