SynthesisMedicine2025
Comprehensive evaluation of current strategies in achalasia treatment: Insights from an umbrella review.
Synthesis in Medicine, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAchalasia poses a considerable clinical challenge due to its complex pathophysiology and varied treatment responses. This umbrella review aims to consolidate current meta-analyses, providing a comprehensive evaluation of treatment efficacy across various methodologies. By employing statistical analyses and concise quality assessment, we seek to standardize outcomes and effectively highlight the limitations inherent in existing research.
methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted across 5 international databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, to identify relevant meta-analyses focused on achalasia treatments. Key parameters evaluated included clinical success rates, complications, operation times, and lengths of hospital stay. Statistical synthesis was employed to compare treatment effectiveness across studies.
resultsThe initial search identified 1037 records, of which 23 meta-analysis studies were included in this study. This review suggests that peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) may be comparable to, or potentially more effective than, Heller myotomy in the short-term management of achalasia. However, this was not further supported in longer follow-up durations. While POEM offers advantages such as shorter hospital stays, the ability to perform longer myotomies, and reduced operative duration, it demonstrated a greater risk of gastroesophageal reflux. However, the existing data are insufficiently conclusive, underscoring the need for additional long-term, high-quality studies to validate these results.
conclusionThis review highlights the comparable efficacy and safety of POEM and Heller myotomy in the treatment of achalasia. The variability in study quality and the presence of methodological flaws in the conducted studies underlines the need for further long-term research, improved methodological rigor, and standardized treatment protocols to optimize patient management in achalasia.
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.