SynthesisNeurogastroenterology and motility2026
A Systematic Review: Role of Pyloric Dilation in the Management of Gastroparesis.
Synthesis in Neurogastroenterology and motility, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGastroparesis (GP) is a motility disorder characterized by pronounced delayed gastric emptying and associated with symptoms. Endoscopic pyloric dilation (PyD) is a minimally invasive option targeting pyloric dysfunction, though efficacy remains variably reported.
aimsThis systematic review assessed clinical outcomes and safety of PyD in adults and children with GP not associated with surgical manipulation.
methodsPubMed, Embase, and Scopus were searched through December 2025 for studies evaluating PyD in GP. Post-surgical and non-GP etiologies were excluded. Twelve studies (12 full manuscripts) met inclusion criteria. Data on technique, response rates, and adverse events were extracted.
resultsQuality of studies was fair to poor. Symptom improvement with PyD was described in 37%-85% of treated patients. PyD plus botulin toxin efficacy was reported as 50%-80%. Benefits were reported as early as 2 weeks and up to 2 years after intervention. Repeat dilations were occasionally performed with response ranging from 40% to 95% for adults and children. No serious complications were reported. Adverse events were limited to transient pain reported in one study. Variability in technique and outcome definitions limited pooled analyses.
conclusionsWithin study quality constraints, PyD may be a low-risk option for symptom relief in select GP patients across all age groups. As there was significant heterogeneity in the data published, well-designed control studies should be performed to evaluate if this efficacy is convincing. Standardized protocols and integration of novel tools such as EndoFLIP are needed to refine patient selection and assess long-term efficacy.
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.