Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33650003›Full record

SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2021

Efficacy of different endoscopic treatments in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Peiwei Xie, Jing Yan, Ling Ye, Chong Wang, Yuanyuan Li, Youxiang Chen, Guohua Li

Abstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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 · 2023
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Peiwei XieDepartment of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, 17 Yongwai Street, Nanchang, 30006, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4652-2931
Jing YanDepartment of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, 17 Yongwai Street, Nanchang, 30006, China.
Ling YeDepartment of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, 17 Yongwai Street, Nanchang, 30006, China.
Chong WangDepartment of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, 17 Yongwai Street, Nanchang, 30006, China.
Yuanyuan LiDepartment of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, 17 Yongwai Street, Nanchang, 30006, China.
Youxiang ChenDepartment of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, 17 Yongwai Street, Nanchang, 30006, China.
Guohua LiDepartment of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, 17 Yongwai Street, Nanchang, 30006, China. liguohua98@sohu.com.
Nanchang University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBoth transoral incisionless fundoplication (TIF) and radiofrequency ablation (Stretta) are representative endoscopic treatments for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), but they have not been directly compared. This systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) evaluated the comparative effects of Stretta, TIF, and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs).

methodsPubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and Embase were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the efficacy of either the Stretta, TIF, or PPIs/sham procedure for GERD treatment. The NMA was conducted using frequentist methods.

resultsA total of 516 participants from 10 RCTs were included in this NMA. Both Stretta (mean difference, MD - 9.77, 95% confidence interval, CI - 12.85 to - 6.70) and TIF (MD - 12.22, 95% CI - 15.93 to - 8.52) were significantly superior to PPIs at improving health-related quality of life (HRQL) scores and heartburn scores (Stretta: MD - 1.53, 95% CI - 2.98 to - 0.08; TIF: MD - 9.60, 95% CI - 17.79 to - 1.41). Stretta (MD - 3.77, 95% CI - 6.88 to - 0.65) was less effective at increasing lower esophageal sphincter (LES) pressure than TIF. Stretta was significantly superior to TIF (MD - 3.25, 95% CI - 5.95 to - 0.56) at improving esophageal acid exposure. Regarding the decrease in PPIs utility and esophagitis incidence, no significant differences were found between TIF and Stretta.

conclusionIn terms of short-term reduction of the HRQL score and heartburn score in patients with GERD, TIF and Stretta may be comparable to each other, and both may be more effective than PPIs. TIF may increase the LES pressure in comparison with Stretta and PPIs. PPIs may reduce the percentage of time pH < 4.0 when compared with TIF. This evidence should be interpreted with caution given the small number of included studies and inherent heterogeneity. Registration No. CRD42020188345.

Indexed as

AdultEndoscopyFemaleGastroesophageal RefluxHumansMaleMiddle AgedTreatment OutcomeYoung AdultGERDNetwork meta-analysisRadiofrequency ablationTransoral incisionless fundoplication

Identifiers

PMID33650003
OpenAlexW3134682321

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.