ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2021
Efficacy and Safety of a Novel Mouthpiece for Esophagogastroduodenoscopy: A Multi-Center, Randomized Study.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Acceptability, Safety, and Feasibility of Transnasal and Peroral Ultrathin Endoscopy Using GAGLESS Mouthpieces: A Prospective Randomized Trial.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Trial
- Complications of Endoscopic Pressure Study Integrated System: Review of 1205 Cases in 10 Years' Experience.DEN open · 2026Article
- Special Issue "The Next Generation of Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy".Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This randomized trial aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of the GAGLESS mouthpiece for esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) with that of the conventional mouthpiece. In all, 90 participants were divided into the GAGLESS mouthpiece and conventional mouthpiece groups. The primary endpoint was the severity of pain using the visual analog scale (VAS), and secondary endpoints were examination time, past history of endoscopy, success of the procedure, systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressure, oxygen saturation, pulse rate before and after EGD, and adverse events. Endoscopy was completed in all cases, and no complications were observed. VAS, when passing the scope through the pharynx, was 2.5 ± 2.4 and 2.0 ± 1.9 cm (
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.