ArticleScientific reports2025
A comparison of three kinds of balloon dilatations for patients with benign esophageal strictures.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advances in the treatment of postoperative anastomotic strictures in esophageal cancer a comparative analysis of the efficacy of endoscopic versus interventional dilatation.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2026Review
- Recent Endoscopic Technological Advancements in Crohn's Stricture Dilation.Current gastroenterology reports · 2026Review
- A real-world study of endoscopic and fluoroscopic management of benign colorectal strictures: clinical and cost-effectiveness outcomes.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Article
- A comparative study of small and large balloon dilation for the treatment of benign colorectal anastomotic stricture after colectomy for colorectal cancer in adults.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- A real-world study of balloon dilation vs. self-expandable metal stents for benign gastric outlet obstruction.BMC 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
Benign esophageal strictures (BES) have been usually treated with balloon dilatation with occasionally drug-coated balloon (DCB) or large balloon dilatation. We compared the clinical outcomes of 3 types of dilatations: small balloon dilatation, DCB dilatation, and large balloon dilatation for the treatment of BES. This retrospective study evaluated 3 groups of 82 consecutive patients with BES who underwent dilatation of either small balloon (Group S, n = 25), DCB (Group D, n = 22) or large balloon (Group L, n = 35). Technical success, dysphagia score, safety and recurrence of stricture were collected and evaluated. Technical success rates of dilatation procedure were 88.7%, 87.1% and 89.7% in Group S, Group D and Group L, respectively (P = 0.9291). Rupture occurred in 8 dilatations: two (2.8%) in the Group S, one (3.2%) in the Group D and 5 (7.4%) in the Group L (P = 0.4109). The final scores in Group L (0.4 ± 0.9) was significantly lower than that in Group S (1.3 ± 1.5) or Group D (1.3 ± 1.4; P < 0.01). A total of 44/82 patients (53.7%) were cured with no dysphagia after the end of follow-up: 10 (40.0%) in the Group S, 9 (40.9%) in the Group D and 25 (71.4%) in the Group L. Group L showed the best clinical effectiveness among the three groups (P = 0.0272). Longer hospitalization was required in the Group D (median 21.0, interquartile range [IQR] 10.0-49.5) than in the Group S (median 14.0, IQR 9.0-24.0) or the Group L (median 12.0, IQR 8.0-24.0, P = 0.0112). More hospitalization cost was required in the Group D (median 6.9 months, IQR 3.7-11.2 months) than in the Group S (median 4.0 months, IQR 2.6-6.8 months) or the Group L (median 3.1, IQR 2.1-6.3, P = 0.0006). In conclusion, large balloon dilatation is a safe and effective treatment for BES, with higher clinical effectiveness, shorter hospitalization and lower hospitalization cost. The use of DCB seems least preferable, as they are associated with more hospitalization cost and few cases of clinical improvement.
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.