ReviewCureus2024
Comparative Effectiveness of Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy (POEM) Versus Traditional Treatment Modalities for Achalasia: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 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.
- Effect of sex on the outcomes of peroral endoscopic myotomy for the treatment of achalasia.World journal of gastroenterology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Achalasia is a rare esophageal motility disorder characterized by impaired relaxation of the lower esophageal sphincter (LES) and absence of peristalsis, leading to significant swallowing difficulties and other symptoms. Traditional treatment options, including Heller myotomy (HM) and pneumatic dilation (PD), have been effective but are associated with risks such as perforation and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) has emerged as a minimally invasive alternative, potentially offering several advantages over conventional methods. This systematic review aims to compare the efficacy, safety, and long-term outcomes of POEM versus HM in the treatment of achalasia. We systematically reviewed studies that compared POEM with HM in achalasia patients, focusing on key outcomes such as myotomy length, operative time, treatment success rates, and complication rates. The review included 15 studies comprising four randomized controlled trials, 10 cohort studies, and one case-control study. The results consistently showed that POEM achieved longer myotomy lengths and shorter operative times compared to HM. POEM also demonstrated higher or comparable treatment success rates, with a uniform definition of success based on achieving an Eckardt score of ≤3. However, the complication rates, particularly the incidence of GERD, varied between the two procedures, highlighting the need for careful patient selection and long-term follow-up. POEM offers a promising alternative to HM for the treatment of achalasia, with advantages in terms of reduced invasiveness, shorter operative times, and potentially higher treatment success rates. However, further high-quality research is necessary to fully establish its long-term efficacy and safety compared to conventional treatments.
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.