ReviewCureus2023
Flexible Endoscopy Versus Rigid Endoscopy or Surgery for the Management of Zenker's Diverticulum: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- The safety and efficacy of endoscopic approaches for the management of Zenker's diverticulum: a multicentre retrospective study.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- The Endoscopic Management of Zenker's Diverticulum: A Comprehensive Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Zenker's diverticulum treatment options range from endoscopic rigid or flexible procedures to surgery. There are limited studies available comparing these techniques. Frequently, the choice of treatment depends on the physician's preference or experience, as well as the institution's resources and capacity. Therefore, this study aims to define the best approach based on the highest efficacy and the lowest severe adverse events. In accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a comprehensive search was performed. Only comparative studies were included, analyzing flexible endoscopy versus rigid endoscopy or surgery. The outcomes analyzed were clinical and technical success, severe adverse events, length of stay, and duration of the procedure. Analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4.1 (RevMan 5.4, The Cochrane Collaboration, The Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark). Eight retrospective cohort studies met the inclusion criteria. A total of 1281 patients were identified, 492 underwent flexible endoscopy, 453 underwent rigid endoscopy, and 336 underwent surgery. There was no difference in clinical success [risk difference (RD), 0.07 (95% CI -0.05 to 0.19%); P = 0.26], technical success [RD, 0.07 (95% CI -0.03 to 0.16); P = 0.18], severe adverse events [RD, -0.03 (95% CI -0.13 to 0.07; P = 0.052), perforation [RD, 0.07 (95% CI -0.04 to 0.19); P = 0.22] or procedure time [mean difference (MD), - 10.03 (95% CI -26.93 to 6.88); P = 0.24). There was lower length of stay with flexible endoscopy compared to the other approaches [MD, -1.98 (95% CI -3.56 to -0.40); P = 0.001]. Based on the current evidence, the three main techniques are effective for the treatment of Zenker's diverticulum. Although there was no significant difference in the safety of each technique in this meta-analysis, this result should be interpreted cautiously due to the limited data and the risk of vies between the techniques, considering that the results tend to favor flexible endoscopy, mainly explained by the newer and safer devices. Length of stay is lower with flexible endoscopy versus the other techniques, which can be beneficial considering the geriatric populations where Zenker's diverticulum mainly occurs.
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.