ArticleClinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2026
Endoscopic esophageal bougienage followed by modified intralesional steroid injection for refractory benign esophageal stricture: A retrospective study and meta-analysis.
Article in Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of a modified intralesional steroid injection technique following bougienage in patients with Refractory Benign Esophageal Strictures (RBES).
methodsThirty patients with RBES were retrospectively enrolled at Peking University First Hospital between January 2012 and December 2021. All patients were treated with either endoscopic esophageal bougienage followed by modified intralesional steroid injections (using a 3 mm needle to target the submucosa at the edges of the dilation-induced mucosal tear) (n = 11) or endoscopic esophageal bougienage alone (n = 19).
resultsThere were no significant differences in the time to first repeat dilation between the combined therapy and bougienage-alone groups (Hazard Ratio [HR = 0.27], 95% CI 0.03 to 2.22; p = 0.189). Moreover, the authors the authors did not find a significant difference between the groups in the number of dilation sessions required (p = 0.107). In contrast, combined therapy was associated with a significantly shorter overall duration of dilation therapy (p = 0.043) and improved dysphagia severity (p = 0.044). Finally, there were no significant differences in the risks of delayed hemorrhage (p = 0.231) and perforation (p = 0.231) between the groups. Additionally, a meta-analysis of six existing studies confirmed that the combined approach was associated with significantly fewer required dilation sessions (p = 0.005) and a higher rate of dysphagia resolution (p = 0.021).
conclusionsIn this small, likely underpowered, retrospective cohort, modified combined therapy did not significantly prolong the time to first repeat dilation. Observations of a shorter total duration of dilation therapy and improved dysphagia severity are considered exploratory and hypothesis-generating. The pooled evidence from our meta-analysis supports the rationale for further investigation of steroid augmentation.
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.