SynthesisPloS one2024
Network meta-analysis of the efficacy of endoscopic cardia peripheral tissue scar formation (ECSF) in the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Endoscopic antireflux therapy is widely used in clinical practice. Peroral endoscopic cardial constriction (PECC), antireflux mucosal intervention (ARMI), and radiofrequency ablation (RF) possess analogous antireflux mechanisms. This comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate and compare the safety and effectiveness of antireflux therapy during endoscopic cardia peripheral tissue scar formation (ECSF) procedures. We comprehensively searched the Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wan-Fang databases for articles published from January 1990 to January 2024. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was used to assess the outcomes, with outcome metrics including the Gastroesophageal Reflux Questionnaire (GERD-Q) score, proton pump inhibitor discontinuation rate, pH <4.2 percent acid reflux time (AET), lower esophageal pressure (LES pressure), DeMeester score, adverse events, and patient satisfaction. Twenty studies involving 1219 patients were included. PECC was significantly superior to RF in lowering the patients' postoperative GERD-Q scores(MD = -2.34, 95% confidence interval (CI): [-3.02, -1.66]), augmentation of LES pressures(MD = 3.22, 95% CI: [1.21, 5.23]), and having a lower incidence of serious adverse events. ARMI was preferable to PECC (MD = -2.87, 95% CI [-4.23, -1.51])and RF (MD = -1.12, 95% CI [-1.79, -0.54]) in reducing the AET percentage, but was not as effective as PECC in lowering GERD-Q scores(MD = -1.50, 95% CI [-2.47, -0.53]). The incidence of adverse effects was less than 10% for all interventions, with most of them mildly self-resolving. Each ECSF procedure resulted in a favorable outcome in patients with GERD. Considering the safety and efficacy of treatment, PECC was the most favorable choice among ECSF procedures.
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.