ArticleSurgical endoscopy2024
Comparative evaluation of endoscopic anti-reflux mucosectomy and stretta radiofrequency ablation in the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease: insights from a retrospective multicenter cohort study.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Beyond monotherapy by acid suppression: Reshaping the management of refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease.World journal of gastroenterology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTreatment options for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) that is unresponsive to proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) remain limited. Therefore, we compared the therapeutic effects of anti-reflux mucosectomy (ARMS) and Stretta radiofrequency (SRF) for intractable GERD in over 400 individuals who underwent either procedure.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective study between 2016 and 2023 to evaluate the effectiveness of SRF and ARMS treatments for refractory GERD. The primary measure of success was the change in the GERD questionnaire (GERDQ) score. The secondary outcomes were various GERD-related indicators, including endoscopic Los Angeles (LA) classification, Hill's type-based flap valve grade (FVG), EndoFLIP™ distensibility index (DI), rate of PPI discontinuation, resolution rate of Barrett's esophagus, and incidence of adverse events.
resultsThe ARMS group included patients with high GERDQ scores, FVG, LA grade, and Barrett's esophagus. Both groups had similar rates of improvements in GERDQ score (P = 0.884) and PPI withdrawal (P = 0.866); however, the ARMS group had significantly more side effects and improvements in the median change in GERDQ score (P = 0.011), FVG (P < 0.001), LA grade (P < 0.001), EndoFLIP™ DI (P < 0.001), and resolution of Barrett's esophagus (P < 0.001).
conclusionsThe ARMS group had a greater GERDQ score improvement than the SRF group but had symptom relief and PPI discontinuation rates similar to those of the SRF group. However, objective measures, including EndoFLIP™ DI and endoscopic evaluations, were better in the ARMS group than in the SRF group.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38866947What 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.