ReviewCureus2024
Comparative Efficacy of Endoscopic Versus Open Surgical Techniques in the Management of Gastric Outlet Obstruction: 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.
- A network meta-analysis on the optimal treatment of malignant gastric outlet obstruction.Therapeutic advances in 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) is a clinical condition that can arise from both benign and malignant causes, requiring effective management strategies to ensure optimal patient outcomes. Traditionally, open surgical techniques like gastrojejunostomy (GJ) have been the standard treatment, but recent advances in minimally invasive procedures, such as endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE), offer alternative approaches with potentially reduced morbidity. This systematic review compared the efficacy, safety, and clinical outcomes of endoscopic versus open surgical techniques in managing GOO. A comprehensive search of major electronic databases, including PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Scopus, identified relevant studies published from January 2014 to September 2024. The analysis included randomized controlled trials, clinical trials, and meta-analyses involving a total of 8,540 patients. Results indicated that EUS-GE showed high technical and clinical success rates (91-94% and 88-89.9%, respectively) and lower complication rates (6.8-13.1%) compared to open surgical approaches, which were associated with higher perioperative risks but demonstrated better long-term outcomes in specific scenarios, such as malignant GOO. The findings suggest that while endoscopic techniques are preferable for patients with high surgical risk, open surgery may still be necessary in complex cases. Further research, including randomized controlled trials and long-term studies, is recommended to refine these strategies and improve clinical decision-making. This review underscores the importance of tailored treatment approaches in optimizing the management of GOO, balancing efficacy, safety, and patient-centered outcomes.
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.