Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35585499›Full record

ArticleBMC gastroenterology2022

Comparison of fully coated anti-reflux metal stenting and per-oral endoscopic myotomy in patients with achalasia: a propensity score-matched retrospective study.

Yu-Fen Tang, Peng Jin, Yu-Rong Tao, Hui Xie, Xin Wang, Dongliang Yu, Shan Tang, Jian-Qiu Sheng

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC gastroenterology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 44% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Yu-Fen Tang *Department of Gastroenterology, The Seventh Medical Center of PLA General Hospital, Nanmencang 5#, Dongcheng District, Beijing, 100700, China.
Peng Jin *Department of Gastroenterology, The Seventh Medical Center of PLA General Hospital, Nanmencang 5#, Dongcheng District, Beijing, 100700, China.
Yu-Rong Tao *Department of Gastroenterology, The Seventh Medical Center of PLA General Hospital, Nanmencang 5#, Dongcheng District, Beijing, 100700, China.
Hui XieDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Seventh Medical Center of PLA General Hospital, Nanmencang 5#, Dongcheng District, Beijing, 100700, China.
Xin WangDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Seventh Medical Center of PLA General Hospital, Nanmencang 5#, Dongcheng District, Beijing, 100700, China.
Dongliang YuDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Seventh Medical Center of PLA General Hospital, Nanmencang 5#, Dongcheng District, Beijing, 100700, China.
Shan TangDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Seventh Medical Center of PLA General Hospital, Nanmencang 5#, Dongcheng District, Beijing, 100700, China.
Jian-Qiu ShengDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Seventh Medical Center of PLA General Hospital, Nanmencang 5#, Dongcheng District, Beijing, 100700, China. jianqiu@263.net.
Chinese PLA General Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAchalasia is a rare primary esophageal motility disorder disease. It is reported that the long-term effect of fully coated anti-reflux metal stent (FCARMS) implantation is satisfactory. Operated by a skilled and experienced endoscopist, the effect of per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) treatment is equivalent to that of surgical myotomy. So far, there is still few evidence to prove FCARMS implantation or POEM which is better for achalasia. The choice of treatment for achalasia is still controversial. The aim of this study is to find a more suitable therapy for achalasia by comparing the efficacy of FCARMS implantation and POEM.

methodsA propensity score (PS) matching (1:2) was used in this retrospective cohort study. Data collected from consecutive patients of Achalasia, receiving FCARMS implantation or POEM therapy at the department of gastroenterology, the Seventh Medical Center of the Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital from May 2007 to May 2018. According to their previous treatment, they are divided into two groups, FCARMS group and POEM group. Clinical efficacy and complications were compared between the two groups.

resultsA total of 166 cases were collected, including 113 cases of FCARMS and 53 cases of POEM. By PS matching, 150 patients were enrolled (100 cases of FCARMS and 50 cases of POEM). By comparison, the FCARMS group has shorter operation time, shorter fasting time and lower hospitalization costs than the POEM group (p < 0.05). Common complications in the FCARMS group are nausea, vomiting, and stent shift. Repetitions of gastroscopy in the FCARMS group was more often, which were 3.8 ± 2.4 (vs 2.1 ± 1.8 of POEM) (p = 0.00 < 0.05) The 6-month remission rates of the FCARMS combination POEM group were 89% and 94%, respectively (p = 0.39), and the 2-year remission rates were 61% and 90%, respectively (p = 0.00).

conclusionsStent placement is a cost-effective and safe treatment option for achalasia. The short-term effect (less than 6 months) of FCARMS is similar to that of POEM, the long-term effect (more than 2 years), POEM is better than FCARMS. HRMIIis most suitable for POEM treatment. It indicate that Patients can choose treatment methods according to their own conditions.

Indexed as

Esophageal AchalasiaEsophagitis, PepticGastroesophageal RefluxMyotomyNatural Orifice Endoscopic SurgeryEsophageal Sphincter, LowerEsophagoscopyHumansPropensity ScoreRetrospective StudiesStentsTreatment OutcomeAchalasiaFully coated anti-reflux metal stentingPer-oral endoscopic myotomy

Identifiers

PMID35585499
PMCPMC9118839
OpenAlexW4280608707

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.