ArticleGastroenterology research2021
Esophageal Food Impaction: A Retrospective Chart Review.
Article in Gastroenterology research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparable Efficacy for Push Versus Pull Technique in Esophageal Food Impaction: Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2023Pooled it
- Efficacy of cola ingestion for oesophageal food bolus impaction: open label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2023Trial
- Anesthesiological Management of a Sewing Needle Impacted in the Larynx in an Adult: A Case Report.Clinical case reports · 2026Article
- Differences in Presentation and Outcomes by Type and Severity of Food Impaction Symptoms in Eosinophilic Esophagitis.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2026Article
- Management of a Large Bone Impaction in the Esophagus With Cola and Catheters: A Case Report and Literature Review.Clinical case reports · 2026Article
- Food impactions in the esophagus: incidence, causes, and treatment.Zeitschrift fur Gastroenterologie · 2025Article
- Timing of Endoscopic Intervention for Esophageal Food Impaction and Its Impact on Patient Outcomes.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2024Article
- Prevalence and Costs of Esophageal Strictures in the United States.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2024Article
- Association between time from esophageal food impaction to endoscopy and adverse events.Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEsophageal food impaction (EFI) is the third most common non-biliary emergency in gastroenterology, with an annual incidence rate of 13 episodes per 100,000 person-years and 1,500 deaths per year. Patients presenting with food impaction often have underlying esophageal pathology. We evaluated the possible risk factors for EFI in our study.
methodsWe performed a retrospective chart review of 455 patients at Staten Island University Hospital (SIUH) that presented with symptoms of food impaction from 1999 to 2017. We analyzed relevant clinical data such as age, risk factors, type of food bolus, location, administration of glucagon, endoscopic technique and complications.
resultsOverall, 174 patients had endoscopically confirmed EFI. The majority were males 102/174 (58.6%). Esophageal pathological findings included esophagitis in 58/174 (33.3%), strictures in 43/174 (24.7%), hiatal hernias in 29/174 (16.6%) and Schatzki's rings in 15/174 (8.6%). Thirty-two out of 174 (18.3%) had normal endoscopic findings. Diabetes mellitus (DM) was reported in 20/174 (11.4%) patients. The type of food impacted was mostly meat in 73/174 (41.9%) cases. The location of EFI was mainly in the lower one-third of the esophagus in 94/174 (54%). The endoscopic push technique was used in 95/174 (54.5%) patients and the pull technique in 83/174 (47.7%) cases. The endoscopic therapeutic intervention was successful as a first attempt in 165/175 (94.8%) patients. Complications were reported in only 5/174 (2.8%), and these mostly comprised of perforations and tears. Glucagon was given to 74/174 (42.5%) patients. The median door-to-scope time (time of presentation at the emergency department to endoscopic intervention) was 7 h (range 1.5 - 24 h) in patients who had received glucagon as opposed to 7 h (range 1 - 24 h) in patients who did not receive it.
conclusionEFI is more common in males. Esophageal strictures and hiatal hernias were the most common pathologies found in endoscopy. Esophagitis was evident in 33.3% of patients, but if it was the cause or consequence of EFI is not clearly understood. DM was associated with food impaction in only 11.4% of patients, but more studies are needed to determine if DM has a stronger association with EFI. The door-to-scope time was shorter in patients who had received glucagon. Endoscopy is a safe and effective therapeutic intervention for EFI, and complications reported were minimal.
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.