Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37278950›Full record

SynthesisDigestive diseases and sciences2023

Comparable Efficacy for Push Versus Pull Technique in Esophageal Food Impaction: Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.

Manesh Kumar Gangwani, Muhammad Aziz, Dushyant Singh Dahiya, Abeer Aziz, Fnu Priyanka, Rahul Karna, Wade Lee-Smith, Zohaib Ahmed, Faisal Kamal, Sumant Inamdar and 2 more

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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

12 authors.

Manesh Kumar GangwaniDepartment of Medicine, University of Toledo Medical Center, Toledo, OH, 43614, USA.
Muhammad AzizDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Toledo Medical Center, Toledo, OH, 43614, USA.
Dushyant Singh DahiyaDepartment of Medicine, Central Michigan University College of Medicine, Saginaw, MI, 48603, USA.
Abeer AzizDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Augusta University, Augusta, GA, USA.
Fnu PriyankaDivision of Medicine, Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto University, Larkana, Pakistan.
Rahul KarnaDepartment of Medicine, Alleghany General Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Wade Lee-SmithUniversity of Toledo Libraries, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH, USA.
Zohaib AhmedDepartment of Medicine, University of Toledo Medical Center, Toledo, OH, 43614, USA.
Faisal KamalDigestive Health Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Sumant InamdarDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA.
Yaseen AlastalDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Toledo Medical Center, Toledo, OH, 43614, USA.
Douglas AdlerCenter for Advanced Therapeutic Endoscopy, Porter Adventist Hospital, Center Health, Denver, CO, 80210, USA. dougraham2001@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3214-6285

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEsophageal food impaction (EFI) is a common GI emergency. Push and pull methods are used currently for EFI retrieval. We aim to review current available literature to compare success rates and evaluate adverse event rates of the two techniques.

methodsA comprehensive literature search was performed using MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science Core Collection, KCI-Korean Journal Index, SciELO and Global Index Medicus. Odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated when comparing the dichotomous variables. We aimed to evaluate technical success and adverse events for EFI comparing push and pull technique on single arm and comparator analysis.

resultsThe search strategy yielded a total of 126 articles. 18 studies with 3528 participants were included. The technical success rate was 97.5% (CI 96.6-99.2%) in the push and 88.4% (CI 72.8-98.7%) in the pull technique with no statistical difference on comparator analysis. Overall rate of adverse events was 4.03% (CI 0.9-5.0%) in the push technique and 2.22% (CI 0-2.9%) in the pull technique with no statistical difference on comparator analysis (OR 95% CI 0.464-2.782, p = 0.78, I

conclusionBoth techniques have acceptable clinical outcomes which appear within standard of care. Operator experience and individual clinical scenarios should guide decision-making regarding technique selection.

Indexed as

Esophageal DiseasesFoodHumansEsophagus foreign bodyEsophagus obstructionFood bolusFood impactionPullPush

Identifiers

PMID37278950

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.