ArticleGastroenterology report2025
Clinical features and endoscopic management of sharp wooden object ingestions: a systematic review of 479 cases.
Article in Gastroenterology report, 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.
- Foreign Body Ingestion in Children: A Narrative Review of Time-Critical Risk Stratification and Contemporary Management.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Foreign body ingestion in adults: a retrospective cohort study of clinical characteristics and Endoscopic outcomes.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Rectal Impaction of a Migratory Duck Bone After 72 Asymptomatic Hours: A Defused Time Bomb.Clinical case reports · 2026Article
- Enterocutaneous Fistula Caused by an Ingested Chicken Bone in an Adult: A Case Report.Case reports in surgery · 2026Article
- Clinical experiences of 109 children with foreign body ingestion: a retrospective study from Kunming, China.Frontiers in pediatrics · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and aims: Ingested sharp objects pose increased risks of adverse events compared with other foreign bodies. We conducted the largest systematic review to date of sharp wooden object ingestions to elucidate patterns in clinical presentation and guide management practices. Methods: Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection databases were searched for cases of adults who ingested sharp wooden objects. Descriptive statistics were reported for risk factors, clinical presentations, laboratory and imaging findings, adverse events, and treatments. Results: Analysis of 479 cases showed that most patients were unaware of ingestion (74.8%) and toothpicks were the most common ingested item (92.5%). Male sex (70.1%), substance use (9.4%), and edentulousness (6.1%) were risk factors. Common symptoms included abdominal pain (83.7%) and fever (36.7%). Imaging identified the object in 48.1% of cases, with computed tomography being the most sensitive (54.7%). Objects were commonly found in the gastrointestinal tract (79.3%). They were consistently found in the gastrointestinal tract when patients were aware of ingestion or imaging showed an intraluminal/transluminal location. Endoscopy visualized the objects 76.1% of the time, with successful removal in 88.8% of cases; 4.7% of patients required surgery following endoscopic removal. Adverse events included perforation (87.5%) and abscess (33.0%), with a mortality rate of 5.0%. Conclusions: Ingestion of sharp wooden objects presents heterogeneously and can lead to serious complications. Endoscopic removal is safe and effective. We propose a clinical algorithm to guide physicians in diagnosing and managing suspected sharp wooden object ingestion.
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.