ReviewCureus2025
Magnetic Sphincter Augmentation Versus Fundoplication in Non-obese Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD) Patients: A Systematic Review of Patient-Reported Outcomes and Dysphagia.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Refractory gastroesophageal reflux-related cough: Mechanistic insights and a rational pathway to phenotype-driven management.Therapeutic advances in respiratory diseaseReview
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
Magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) and laparoscopic fundoplication (LF) are established surgical treatments for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). While several comparative studies exist, evidence specifically focusing on non-obese populations remains less extensively characterized. This systematic review evaluates the effectiveness, functional outcomes, and safety profiles of MSA versus LF in non-obese adults with GERD. The protocol was registered with Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO: CRD420251106241). Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. Comparative studies published from 2015 to 2025 were included if they reported outcomes of MSA and LF in non-obese adults (BMI < 30). Data extraction focused on demographics, GERD-Health Related Quality of Life (GERD-HRQL), proton pump inhibitor (PPI) discontinuation, dysphagia, bloating, belching, and complications. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Eight studies with 1,598 patients met the inclusion criteria; 1,078 underwent MSA and 520 received LF. Both interventions significantly improved GERD-HRQL scores. Across the five studies reporting PPI discontinuation, rates were numerically higher with MSA in three studies and higher with LF in two. Overall, findings were mixed and no consistent advantage emerged. MSA patients reported better preservation of belching and reduced bloating. However, persistent dysphagia was more frequent in MSA, with predictors including preoperative dysphagia and weak esophageal motility. Long-term data indicated comparable GERD control but slightly higher reoperation and hernia recurrence rates with MSA. Patient satisfaction was high in both groups, with MSA favored for function-preserving outcomes such as reduced bloating and preserved ability to belch and vomit. MSA and LF both offer effective symptom relief in non-obese GERD patients. MSA demonstrates advantages in physiological function and reversibility but carries a higher risk of early dysphagia. It may be a preferred option in well-selected patients, although further randomized trials are needed to define its role as a primary surgical choice.
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.