ArticleCureus2021
Cricopharyngeal Myotomy in National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP): Complications for Otolaryngologists Versus Non-otolaryngologists.
Article in Cureus, 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robotic cricopharyngeal myotomy for the treatment of cricopharyngeal bars.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- The robot can break bars with the best of them: a novel approach to treating cricopharyngeal bars with myotomy.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveComparing outcomes after cricopharyngeal myotomy (CM) performed by otolaryngologists (OTO) and non-otolaryngologists (NO).
methodsA retrospective analysis of the 2014-19 ACS-NSQIP database (American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program) of patients who underwent open CM (CPT code 43030) as their primary procedure. Analyzed variables include medical comorbidities, operative time, the total length of stay, readmission, reoperation, concurrent procedures, postoperative complications, and postoperative diagnoses. 183 patients were included, 97 (53%) females and 86 (47%) males. 120 had surgery by OTO and 63 by NO. Results: There were no differences in preoperative morbidity. OTO had more outpatient surgeries compared to NO (p<.001). OTO had a longer mean operating time (p=.008). OTO had a higher proportion of concurrent laryngeal procedures and other unspecified procedures compared to NO, while NO had a higher proportion of concurrent esophageal procedures (p=.028). The total length of stay was not significantly different between the two groups. 5.8% OTO and 7.9% NO patients were readmitted for a related reason (p=.586). Complications were similar between the two groups (p>.05). NO had more postop diagnoses of acquired diverticula and achalasia of the stomach cardia, while OTO had more diagnoses of dysphagia and muscular dystrophy (p<.001). Conclusion: There were differences in the surgical setting, length of procedure, concurrent procedures, and postop diagnoses between NO and OTO surgeons but similar complication rates.
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.