Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42394877›Full record

ArticleiGIE : innovation, investigation and insights2026

Double-balloon enteroscopy for luminal evaluation of the excluded stomach: a retrospective multicenter analysis.

Peter Albares, F Otis Stephen, Lauren Pioppo-Phelan, Catherine Hudson, Alice Parish, Iris Vance, Jason Stibbe, Donna Niedzwiecki, Daniel Wild

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in iGIE : innovation, investigation and insights, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

9 authors.

Peter AlbaresDepartment of Internal Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
F Otis StephenDivision of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Lauren Pioppo-PhelanDivision of Gastroenterology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Catherine HudsonSection of Gastroenterology, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.
Alice ParishDepartment of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Iris VanceDivision of Gastroenterology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Jason StibbeSection of Gastroenterology, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.
Donna NiedzwieckiDepartment of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Daniel WildDivision of Gastroenterology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Aims: After Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), accessing the excluded or remnant stomach (RS) is difficult using standard endoscopy, and double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) is often used when pathology is suspected. Data on the use of DBE for this purpose are limited. We investigated the success rate, technical factors, and findings when using DBE to access the RS after RYGB. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of adult patients with RYGB who underwent DBE to access the RS between January 2018 and July 2023 across 3 academic medical centers. Primary aims were identifying the technical success rate of accessing the RS and associated endoscopic findings. Secondary aims were identifying patient characteristics, procedure indications, factors behind technical failures, studies preceding DBE, endoscopic therapies performed, and procedural adverse events. Results: Eighty-nine patients underwent DBE to access the RS after RYGB for anemia/bleeding (56.2%), abdominal pain (32.6%), and abnormal imaging (44.9%). The RS was successfully accessed in 71.9% of cases. The most common reasons the RS was not accessed were proximal pathology (40%), anastomotic angulation (32%), and limb length (16%). Many (40.4%) examination results were normal. The most common findings were inflammatory (30.3%) or vascular (15.7%), 6.7% had polyps, and 5.6% had malignant neoplasm. Biopsy (50.6%) and hemostatic maneuvers (20.2%) were commonly performed. Accessing the RS was not associated with patient age, procedural indication, or time from RYGB. DBE served as definitive management in 29.2% of cases, and no procedural adverse events occurred. Conclusions: The RS in RYGB can be successfully and safely accessed with DBE.

Identifiers

PMID42394877
PMCPMC13324122

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.