ArticleCureus2022
Emergent Endoscopy for Esophageal Foreign Body Removal: The Impact of Location.
Article in Cureus, 2022. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- The "After Hours" Effect and Role of Endoscopy Setting on Outcomes in Patients with Esophageal Food Impaction.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2026Article
- Diagnostic and therapeutic challenges of a "minimally invasive penetrating foreign body": a case report.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Clinical outcomes of sharp esophageal foreign bodies in elderly patients: a retrospective study from Wuhan, China.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Non-foreign body-associated risk factors for complications associated with esophageal foreign-body removal and timing of endoscopic treatment: a single-center retrospective study.BMC gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Imaging approach to ingested foreign bodies in the neck.Neuroradiology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Timely intervention is essential for the successful removal of ingested foreign bodies. Emergent endoscopy (EGD) is usually performed in the emergency department (ED), operating room (OR), intensive care unit (ICU), or endoscopy suite. However, because the endoscopy suite is not always available, this study investigated the impact of location outside of the endoscopy suite on the successful removal of ingested foreign bodies and other patient outcomes. Methodology We reviewed charts of patients who underwent EGD for foreign body removal at an academic quaternary center between January 01, 2012, and December 31, 2020. We defined successful EGD as retrieval of the foreign body at the first attempt and not requiring subsequent endoscopy or surgical intervention. We performed descriptive and inferential statistical analyses and conducted classification and regression trees to compare endoscopy procedure length (EPL) and hospital length of stay (HLOS) between different locations. Results We analyzed 77 patients, of whom 13 (17%) underwent endoscopy in the ICU, 46 (60%) in the OR, and 18 (23%) in the ED. Endoscopic removal failed in four (5%) patients. Endoscopy length was significantly shorter in the OR (67 (48-122) minutes) versus the ICU (158 (95-166) minutes,
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.