ArticleAnnals of gastroenterology
Safety and efficacy of multiband mucosectomy for Barrett's esophagus: a systematic review with pooled analysis.
Article in Annals of gastroenterology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Advanced imaging and artificial intelligence for Barrett's esophagus: What we should and soon will do.World journal of gastroenterology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccording to guidelines, all visible lesions in Barrett's esophagus (BE) should be endoscopically resected. Available methods of endoscopic resection include the cap-assisted technique and, more recently, multiband mucosectomy (MBM). Data on the efficacy and safety of MBM have yet to be systematically reviewed. We performed the first systematic review with pooled analysis to evaluate the outcomes of MBM in patients with BE.
methodsElectronic databases (Medline, Scopus, EMBASE) were searched up to August 2019. Studies including patients with BE who underwent MBM were eligible. The primary outcome was the adverse events rate. Secondary outcomes were the proportions of complete resections and R0 resections. Outcomes were assessed by pooling data using a random or fixed-effect model, according to the degree of heterogeneity, to obtain a proportion with a 95% confidence interval.
resultsFourteen studies were eligible (1334 procedures, 986 patients). The adverse event rate was 5.3%. Immediate and post-procedural bleeding, perforations and strictures occurred in 0.2%, 0.7%, 0.3% and 3.9% of procedures, respectively. Focal lesions were resected at a complete rate of 97.6% with an R0 resection rate of 94.1%.
conclusionMBM is a safe and effective technique for treating visible lesions in BE.
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.