Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32909214›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2021

Does etiology of gastroparesis determine clinical outcomes in gastric electrical stimulation treatment of gastroparesis?

Doris Kim, Ryan Gedney, Shelby Allen, Haley Zlomke, Elizabeth Winter, John Craver, A D Pinnola, Will Lancaster, David Adams

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Doris KimDepartment of General Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA. kimdor@musc.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5076-950X
Ryan GedneyDepartment of General Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA.
Shelby AllenDepartment of General Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA.
Haley ZlomkeDepartment of General Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA.
Elizabeth WinterDepartment of General Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA.
John CraverDepartment of General Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA.
A D PinnolaDepartment of General Surgery, Grand Strand Regional Medical Center, Myrtle Beach, SC, 29572, USA.
Will LancasterDepartment of General Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA.
David AdamsDepartment of General Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA.
Medical University of South Carolina · USRegional Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGastroparesis is a condition characterized by impaired gastric motility that may result in weight loss and malnutrition. There have been promising studies demonstrating improvement in symptoms after gastric electrical stimulation (GES) implantation for medically refractory gastroparetics [1-10]. With the heterogeneous population of gastroparetics, the aim of this study was to assess if etiology correlated with response to GES.

methodsA retrospective review and analysis was performed on patients who underwent GES over a 10-year period at a single institution. Each patient was stratified into an etiological subset (diabetes, idiopathic, post-surgical). Patients were compared by demographics, medical and surgical history, subsequent GES explantation vs continued therapy, need for supplemental nutrition postoperatively, weight gain, weight loss or weight maintenance, and readmission rates.

results183 patients underwent GES from 2005 to 2015. 50% were diabetic (n = 91), 42% idiopathic (n = 76), and 9% post-surgical (n = 16). Diabetic patients (DM) demonstrated the highest likelihood of continued therapy compared to post-surgical (PS) and idiopathic patients (ID) (54.7% vs 9.5% vs 35.8%, respectively, p < 0.05). DM patients saw a greater incidence of weight gain > 4 kg, compared to PS and IS patients (67.6% vs 8.1% vs. 24.3%, respectively, p < 0.05). ID patients were most likely to have it removed compared to DM and PS patients (65.7% vs 28.6% vs 5.7%, respectively, p =  < 0.05). PS patients were least likely to have their GES removed. They were also least likely to utilize supplemental nutrition compared to DM and ID (9.4% vs 49.1% vs 41.51%, respectively, p < 0.05).

conclusionsPatients with gastroparesis had different clinical outcomes after GES therapy based on underlying etiology. By gaining a better understanding of the effects of GES, it can be offered to the appropriate patient.

Indexed as

Electric Stimulation TherapyGastroparesisElectric StimulationGastric EmptyingHumansRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeGastric electrical stimulationGastric pacemakerGastroparesis

Identifiers

PMID32909214
OpenAlexW3086273596

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.