ReviewiGIE : innovation, investigation and insights2026
Endoscopic closure technique performance for iatrogenic perforation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review 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.
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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Perforation is the most feared endoscopy-related adverse event. Various closure techniques are available, including through-the-scope clips (TTSCs), over-the-scope clips (OTSCs), and over-the-scope suturing (OTSS). Given the lack of comparative performance estimates, we sought to systematically appraise TTSC, OTSC, and OTSS performance for iatrogenic perforation. Methods: MEDLINE and Embase were independently searched between June 1947 and January 2024 for citations evaluating TTSC, OTSC, or OTSS performance. Technical success was defined as complete apposition of the borders of the defect with visual confirmation. Clinical success was defined as technical success without further intervention. Pooled estimates using random-effects modeling were generated and stratified by closure modality, location, perforation etiology, and time. Results: Thirty-seven citations assessing 795 perforations were included. Pooled technical and clinical success were 91.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 87.9-94.1; Conclusions: TTSCs, OTSCs, and OTSS are effective for iatrogenic perforation management, especially in tissue resection-related perforations and perforations in the stomach. No difference in performance was identified on the basis of closure modality or time.
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.