ArticleSaudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology Association
Comparison of safety and efficacy of intragastric botulinum toxin-A versus gastric balloon.
Article in Saudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology Association. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endoscopic bariatrics: Current status and emerging technologies.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2025Review
- Intragastric botulinum toxin injection for weight loss: current trends, shortcomings and future perspective.Clinical endoscopy · 2025Review
- Evaluating the efficacy of intragastric botulinum toxin a injections with two different quantities and sites for obesity.PloS one · 2025Article
- Outbreaks of iatrogenic botulism in Europe: Combating off-label medical use of Botulinum Neurotoxin (BoNT) in bariatric procedures.New microbes and new infections · 2023Article
- Intragastric botulinum toxin injection: Is it the solution to all gastric ailments?Saudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology AssociationArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: A prospective case-matched study was conducted to compare the safety and efficacy of endoscopic intragastric botulinum toxin-A (EIBT) versus endoscopically planned gastric balloon (EPGB), as a treatment for obesity. Methods: A total of 176 patients (matched for age and sex) were equally divided to undergo EIBT (n = 88) or EPGB (n = 88). Patients who received EIBT were restricted to a body mass index (BMI) of 25 to 35 kg/m Results: The patients were followed up for a mean of 6 months. The mean weight loss was greater in the EPGB group than in the EIBT group (15.6 kg vs. 9.3 kg, P < 0.001). However, the percentage excess weight loss and the satiety score were greater in the EIBT group (59.1% vs. 42.2%, P < 0.001; and 3.5 vs. 2.3, P < 0.001) respectively. The procedure duration was shorter for EIBT patients (10 min vs. 15 min, P < 0.001). The postoperative complication rate recorded in the EPGB group was significantly higher (30% vs. 9%, P = 0.001). Adverse symptoms lasted longer in EPGB (5.2 days vs. 0.7 days, P < 0.001). Both groups enjoyed similar improvements in QoL. Conclusion: EIBT is a safe and effective treatment for mild obesity. Although the weight loss was greater in the EPGB group, the percentage excess weight loss, procedure duration, postoperative complications, and symptom duration were significantly better in the EIBT group. QoL improvement was comparable between the two groups.
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.