ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2022
Clinical efficacy of endoscopic antireflux mucosectomy
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Treatment procedures for intractable gastroesophageal reflux disease after peroral endoscopic myotomy for achalasia: a retrospective study in South Korea.Clinical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Application status of endoscopic anti-reflux mucosal interventions in the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Review
- A comparative analysis of ARMS (anti-reflux mucosectomy) and TIF (transoral incisionless fundoplication) in the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Review
- The comparative study of Stretta radiofrequency and anti-reflux mucosectomy in the management of intractable gastroesophageal reflux disease: a single-center retrospective study from Korea.Clinical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Redefining endoscopic management of refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease: the role of Stretta radiofrequency therapy and antireflux mucosectomy.Clinical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Constructing an artificial intelligence-assisted system for the assessment of gastroesophageal valve function based on the hill classification (with video).BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- Comparative evaluation of endoscopic anti-reflux mucosectomy and stretta radiofrequency ablation in the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease: insights from a retrospective multicenter cohort study.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Review
- Observational
- Short and long term effect of anti-reflux mucosectomy with cap-assisted endoscopic mucosal resection for refractory gastroesophageal disease.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Using deep learning to assess the function of gastroesophageal flap valve according to the Hill classification system.Annals of medicine · 2023Article
- Endoscopic treatment of gastroesophageal reflux: a narrative review.Porto biomedical journalReview
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Currently, antireflux mucosectomy (ARMS) and Stretta radiofrequency (SRF) are the most commonly used minimally invasive antireflux therapies. To date, there have not been any reports comparing ARMS and SRF. Our aim was to compare the clinical efficacies of these two therapeutic methods. Methods: We analyzed data from gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) patients, including 39 who received ARMS treatment and 30 who received SRF treatment between January 2020 and May 2021. Symptom control, gastroesophageal reflux disease questionnaire (GERDQ) score, gastroesophageal reflux disease health-related quality of life (GERD-HRQL) score, proton pump inhibitor (PPI) withdrawal, and PPI reduction were analyzed and compared. Results: After 6 months of follow-up, the results showed that both therapies were effective in improving symptoms and quality of life. No difference was found between the ARMS group and SRF group in GERDQ score, GERD-HRQL score, PPI withdrawal rate, or PPI reduction rate (P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the PPI withdrawal rate between the two therapies among patients with gastroesophageal flap valve (GEFV) grade II and grade III (P>0.05), but the PPI withdrawal rate in the ARMS group was significantly higher than that in the SRF group among patients with GEFV grade IV (P<0.05). Conclusions: The clinical efficacies of ARMS and SRF 6 months postoperation were equivalent. The results showed that both ARMS and SRF treatment were acceptable for patients with GEFV grades II and III, while ARMS should be selected for patients with GEFV grade IV.
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.