ReviewGastroenterology research and practice2022
Safety and Efficacy of Peroral Endoscopic Shorter Myotomy versus Longer Myotomy for Patients with Achalasia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Review in Gastroenterology research and practice, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Short versus long myotomy during peroral endoscopic myotomy for achalasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Article
- Does Short Myotomy Really Not Reduce the Risk of Reflux Esophagitis and Pathologic Acid Exposure After Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy?Digestive diseases and sciences · 2025Article
- A Case of Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Detected After Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy in a Patient With Achalasia.Cureus · 2024Article
- Clinical efficacy and safety of short-length peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) compared with long-length myotomy for the treatment of achalasia.Therapeutic advances in gastrointestinal endoscopyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: The adequate myotomy length during peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is still controversial. We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the efficacy and safety of the modified POEM with shorter myotomy (SM) and compare the outcomes between SM and longer myotomy (LM) in achalasia patients. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases from inception to May 28, 2021. The primary outcome was clinical success rate and incidence of reflux-relative adverse events (AEs). Fixed- or random-effect models were adopted for the analysis according to the heterogeneity. Results: Five studies involving 225 patients in SM group and 222 patients in LM group were included. The overall clinical success of SM was 96.6% (95% confidence interval (CI) 92.7 to 98.4%). SM showed noninferior response as compared to LM (risk ratio (RR) 1.02, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.06, Conclusions: SM and LM are comparable in providing treatment efficacy for achalasia patients, whereas less operation time and lower incidence of post-POEM abnormal esophageal acid exposure are observed in SM.
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.