ReviewAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2025
Gastric electrical stimulation versus standard medical therapies for long-term symptom control and improved quality of life in drug-refractory gastroparesis patients.
Review in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2025. 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness of gastric electrical stimulation (GES) in alleviating symptoms of gastroparesis (GP) compared to alternative medical therapies. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase from January 2004 to October 2024 using MeSH terms and keywords related to GP and GES. The search included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies published in English. Data extraction followed PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines. The primary outcome was symptom control, measured using the weighted mean difference and a 95% confidence interval (CI). Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan software, and the certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE tool. Results: A total of 1918 articles were screened, with 4 studies included in the final analysis. The mean difference in symptom control was -0.16 (95% CI: -0.57, 0.26). Heterogeneity was assessed using the chi-square Test, and inconsistency was quantified using the I Conclusions: GES provides some symptomatic relief in GP, particularly for nausea and vomiting, though the improvements were not statistically significant. Future research should focus on non-crossover RCTs to minimize bias and further explore GES efficacy in idiopathic and postsurgical gastroparesis cases.
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.