Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40901101›Full record

ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2025

Esophageal stenting and endoscopic vacuum therapy for esophageal defects: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

Muhammad Saqib, Muhammad Iftikhar, Khaqan Ahmed, Humna Shahid, I Shehr, Yar Khan, Muhammad Aamir Iqbal, Hassan Mumtaz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Muhammad SaqibDepartment of Medicine, Khyber Medical College, Pakistan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3645-6416
Muhammad IftikharDepartment of Medicine, Hayatabad Medical Complex, Pakistan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9790-4783
Khaqan AhmedDepartment of Medicine, Khyber Teaching Hospital, Pakistan.
Humna ShahidDepartment of Medicine, CMH Multan Institute of Medical Sciences, Pakistan.
I ShehrDepartment of Medicine, Khyber Medical College, Pakistan.
Yar KhanDepartment of Medicine, Gandhara University Kabir Medical College, Pakistan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-9846-0764
Muhammad Aamir IqbalDepartment of Medicine, Khyber Teaching Hospital, Pakistan.
Hassan MumtazDepartment of Medicine, BPP University, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2881-2556

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Spontaneous esophageal perforation, especially Boerhaave syndrome, carries high morbidity and mortality. Minimally invasive treatments like esophageal stenting and endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT) are increasingly used, but optimal management remains unclear. Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy and safety of esophageal stenting and EVT in managing esophageal defects by assessing sealing rates, failure rates, and mortality. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library through 24 March 2025. Only observational studies and case series were included. Primary outcomes were the pooled sealing rate, failure rate, and mortality for stenting, and the closure rate for EVT. Data were analyzed using a random-effects model, with heterogeneity assessed by the Results: Twenty stenting studies (245 patients) showed a pooled sealing rate of 86.1% (95% CI: 80.2-92.0%) and a failure rate of 14.9% (95% CI: 8.5-21.3%). Stent-related mortality was 7.4% (95% CI: 3.5-11.4%). Thirteen EVT studies (424 patients) demonstrated a pooled sealing rate of 54.1% (95% CI: 34.8-73.4%) with high heterogeneity ( Conclusion: Both esophageal stenting (86.1% success) and EVT (54.1% overall; 89.6% post-sensitivity) effectively close esophageal defects. However, EVT's heterogeneity and the observational design of studies limit definitive conclusions. These findings affirm stenting's role and suggest EVT's promise, yet emphasize the urgent need for randomized controlled trials to establish evidence-based guidelines.

Indexed as

endoscopic vacuum therapyesophageal defectsesophageal stentingmeta-analysisobservational studies

Identifiers

PMID40901101
PMCPMC12401272

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.