ReviewCureus2022
Gastroesophageal Reflux Waning Over Time in Endoscopic Versus Surgical Myotomy for the Treatment of Achalasia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comprehensive evaluation of current strategies in achalasia treatment: Insights from an umbrella review.Medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Gastroesophageal reflux disease over time in endoscopic versus surgical myotomy for treatment of achalasia: Systematic review and meta-analysis.Endoscopy international open · 2025Review
- Transoral incisionless fundoplication for patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease after peroral endoscopic myotomy: Prospective cohort.Endoscopy international open · 2025Article
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 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) and Heller myotomy with fundoplication (HMF) effectively treat achalasia, an esophageal motor disease. Although a significant number of meta-analyses have compared POEM and HMF, these studies showed discrepant postoperative gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) conclusions. This review aimed to objectively compare GERD over time, as well as the efficiency, safety, and adverse events in POEM versus HMF for treating achalasia. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis by searching Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Clinicaltrials.gov. The evaluated outcomes included early (within 12 months) and late (beyond 12 months) endoscopic assessment of GERD using the Lyon Consensus, clinical success, operative duration (OD), length of stay (LOS), and major adverse events (MAE). A total of 29 observational studies and two randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with 13,914 patients were included. GERD was 28% higher among RCTs discussing POEM at early assessment (95%CI 0.02, 0.54) and was not different at late evaluation (95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.00, 0.22). No difference in reflux was observed among observational studies in both periods. The clinical success was 9% higher (95% CI = 0.05, 0.12), and the OD was 37.74 minutes shorter (95% CI = -55.44, -20.04) in POEM among observational studies, whereas it was not different among RCTs. The LOS and MAE were similar in the groups. Comparisons among studies yielded divergent results. RCTs revealed that POEM had a higher incidence of GERD in the early assessment, whereas observational studies showed higher clinical success and a shorter OD in POEM. Ultimately, the between-group difference waned over time in GERD in all comparisons, resulting in no difference among RCTs in the late evaluation. Our meta-analysis demonstrated a non-preferential treatment of achalasia between endoscopic or surgical cardiomyotomy, prioritizing an individualized approach in the long term.
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.