Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36350475›Full record

SynthesisDigestive diseases and sciences2023

Cap-Assisted Endoscopic Esophageal Foreign Body Removal Is Safe and Efficacious Compared to Conventional Methods.

Zohaib Ahmed, Syeda Faiza Arif, Stephanie Lin Ong, Joyce Badal, Wade Lee-Smith, Anas Renno, Yaseen Alastal, Ali Nawras, Muhammad Aziz

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Modern endoscopist's toolbox: Innovations in foreign body removal.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Upper Gastrointestinal Tract Foreign Bodies.The Korean journal of helicobacter and upper gastrointestinal research · 2024
    Review
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

9 authors.

Zohaib AhmedDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Toledo Medical Center, Toledo, OH, USA. Zohaib.Ahmed@utoledo.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8766-4587
Syeda Faiza ArifDow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan.
Stephanie Lin OngUniversity of Toledo College of Medicine and Life Sciences, Toledo, OH, USA.
Joyce BadalUniversity of Toledo College of Medicine and Life Sciences, Toledo, OH, USA.
Wade Lee-SmithUniversity of Toledo Libraries, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH, USA.
Anas RennoDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Toledo Medical Center, Toledo, OH, USA.
Yaseen AlastalDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Toledo Medical Center, Toledo, OH, USA.
Ali NawrasDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Toledo Medical Center, Toledo, OH, USA.
Muhammad AzizDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Toledo Medical Center, Toledo, OH, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionEsophageal foreign body impaction (FBI) is a commonly encountered gastrointestinal emergency requiring immediate intervention. Foreign bodies can be composed of food, commonly referred to as a "food bolus" (FB), or other matter (non-food). We aim to conduct systematic review and meta-analysis to compare cap-assisted and conventional endoscopic techniques for removal of esophageal FBI.

methodsA comprehensive search technique was utilized to identify studies that used capped endoscopic devices to remove FB or other esophageal foreign bodies. The primary outcomes were the technical success rate, rate of en bloc retrieval, and procedure time. Secondary outcomes were overall adverse events, bleeding, mucosal tears, and perforation.

resultsSeven studies with a total of 1407 patients were included. The mean patient age was 55.3 (SD ± 7.2) years and 44.8% of patients were male. There were two RCTs and five observational studies among the included studies. The technical success rate was significantly higher in the cap-assisted group compared to the conventional group (OR 3.47, CI 1.68-7.168, I

conclusionThe cap-assisted technique has improved efficacy and safety. To confirm these results, larger randomized trials are warranted.

Indexed as

EsophagusForeign BodiesEndoscopyFemaleFoodGastrointestinal TractHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesFood bolusForeign body impactionMucosal tearsPerforationRisk ratios

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.