Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37398704›Full record

ReviewCureus2023

A Systematic Review of the Long-Term Clinical Success of Gastric Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy for Refractory Gastroparesis.

Tamara Stojilkovic, Kelsey Staudinger, Jennifer Dennis

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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

3 authors.

Tamara StojilkovicDepartment of Medicine, Kansas City University, Kansas City, USA.
Kelsey StaudingerDepartment of General Surgery, Swedish Medical Center, Englewood, USA.
Jennifer DennisDepartment of Pathology & Anatomical Sciences, Kansas City University, Kansas City, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gastroparesis is a chronic and debilitating gastrointestinal disorder with few medical treatment options. Traditional surgical management has involved laparoscopic pyloromyotomy or gastric stimulation. In recent years, gastric peroral endoscopic myotomy (GPOEM) has become an attractive, less invasive option for patients with refractory gastroparesis. There is little information on the long-term clinical success of GPOEM in patients with refractory gastroparesis. This systematic review aims to evaluate the data on this procedure's long-term clinical efficacy and safety. A comprehensive literature review was done in PubMed, EMBASE, Ovid, and Google Scholar databases from the date of earliest entry in May 2017 up to August 15, 2022. The Gastroparesis Cardinal Symptom Index (GCSI) score, adverse reaction, and length of stay were analyzed. Eleven studies were eligible for inclusion (900 patients), seven of the studies were retrospective, while four were prospective. The GCSI is a 6-point Likert scale questionnaire that assesses improvement in gastroparesis. An average decrease of GCSI by 1 point compared to baseline GCSI for all patients (described as clinical success) was found in 662 patients out of 713 (92.8%) at one-year follow-up, 421 out of 460 (91.5%) at two-year follow-up, 270 out of 270 (100%) at three-year follow-up, and 102 out of 102 (100%) at four-year follow-up. Adverse events occurred in 62 out of 835 patients (in nine studies), with two of the most frequent being bleeding and mucosal tears. GPOEM is an effective and safe treatment option for patients with refractory gastroparesis, with symptom improvement noted up to four years postoperatively.

Indexed as

gastric emptyinggastric peroral endoscopic myotomygastroparesisgcsigpoem

Identifiers

PMID37398704
PMCPMC10309173

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.