SynthesisMedicine2021
Short-term outcomes of different modalities of pyloromyotomy versus gastric electrical stimulation in the treatment of gastroparesis: A systemic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outcome of gastric electrical stimulator with and without pyloromyotomy for refractory gastroparesis.Surgical 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the short-term outcomes surrounding the efficacy and complication rate between different modalities of pyloromyotomy and gastric electrical stimulation (GES) in the treatment of gastroparesis.
methodsComprehensive, computerized research was performed on PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We additionally reviewed relevant articles, without any language limitations, published prior to April 15, 2020. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.3 software.
resultsThree studies totaling 196 participants who had received 4 interventions, including single per-oral pyloromyotomy (POP), double POP, laparoscopic pyloromyotomy, and GES, were eligible for analysis. Compared to single POP, double POP achieved a better clinical response with a pooled relative risk (RR) of 1.27 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.60, P = .04), while laparoscopic pyloromyotomy and GES showed no difference with a pooled RR of 0.89 (95% CI, 0.74-1.08, P = .23) and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.73-1.04, P = .13), respectively. As for the recurrence and complication rates, only GES showed a borderline significance of recurrence in comparison to single POP (RR 2.17, 95% CI, 1.00-4.71, P = .05), while there were no differences in the remainder of the comparisons.
conclusionsWe conducted a detailed comparison of 3 modalities of pyloromyotomy and GES in the treatment of gastroparesis, with the results suggesting that double POP demonstrated better clinical success with similar recurrence and complication rates. In addition, GES may result in more recurrence amongst these interventions.
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.