ArticleAnnals of gastroenterology2026
Comparative efficacy and safety of endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastrojejunostomy versus surgical gastrojejunostomy for the management of gastric outlet obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Annals of gastroenterology, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) is a common condition leading to impaired gastric emptying and nutritional decline. Surgical gastrojejunostomy (SGJ) has been the traditionally used bypass approach. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastrojejunostomy (EUSGJ) has recently emerged as a promising alternative. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of EUSGJ vs. SGJ for the management of GOO. Methods: PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE and Cochrane were searched to identify studies that specifically compared outcomes of EUSGJ vs. SGJ in GOO patients. Outcomes assessment focused on procedural metrics and immediate postoperative recovery. Results: Nine retrospective studies incorporating 1086 patients were included. SGJ was superior in terms of technical success (odds ratio [OR] 0.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.05-0.45; P<0.001). EUSGJ was superior in terms of length of hospital stay (mean difference [MD] -4.79, 95%CI -6.52 to -3.06; P<0.001), overall complications (OR 0.24, 95%CI 0.17-0.33, P<0.001), ileus (OR 0.07, 95%CI 0.02-0.17; P<0.001), operative time (MD -96.89, 95%CI -146.16 to -47.61; P<0.001) and infection (OR 0.17, 95%CI 0.08-0.37; P<0.001). No significant differences were demonstrated in terms of clinical success, reintervention, hemorrhage, and perforation. Conclusions: EUSGJ is a safe alternative to SGJ for the palliation of GOO in the arsenal of expert endoscopists. Further research is warranted to establish its place in the complex decision-making process around GOO management in the context of individualized patient care.
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.