| Title |
Meta-Analysis of Randomized and Controlled Treatment Trials for Achalasia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Digestive Diseases and Sciences, December 2008
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10620-008-0637-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lan Wang, You-Ming Li, Lan Li |
| Abstract |
Pharmacological therapy, botulinum toxin injection, pneumatic dilatation, and surgical myotomy are the primary therapeutic modalities for achalasia, for which laparoscopic myotomy is recommended as state-of-the-art therapy. However, its efficacy and safety remain unclear compared with other approaches in the treatment of achalasia. We searched electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, LILACS-Latin American, Caribbean health science literature, and Science Citation Index Expanded) for randomized controlled trials to evaluate which therapeutic measures are temporary and reversible and which measures are definitive and effective by pooling data including remission rate, relapse rate, complications, and adverse effects. Seventeen studies with 761 patients met our inclusion criteria. There was better remission rate in pneumatic dilation than in botulinum toxin injection for initial intervention [relative risk (RR) 2.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.51-3.20], Pneumatic dilation had lower relapse rate than did botulinum toxin injection (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.04-0.32). Compared with pneumatic dilation, laparoscopic myotomy further increased remission rate (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.48-1.87), and reduced clinical relapse rate (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.04-0.58), and there was no difference in complication rate (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.37-5.99). Based on limited randomized and controlled trials, laparoscopic myotomy is the preferred method for patients with achalasia. Future trials should investigate whether laparoscopic myotomy combined with different modalities of fundoplication is superior to isolated laparoscopic myotomy. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| Morocco | 1 | 2% |
| Egypt | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 53 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 13% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 5 | 9% |
| Other | 14 | 25% |
| Unknown | 8 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 39 | 70% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 12 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 February 2024.
All research outputs
#7,381,450
of 23,854,458 outputs
Outputs from Digestive Diseases and Sciences
#1,248
of 4,304 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,581
of 173,895 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Digestive Diseases and Sciences
#13
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,854,458 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,304 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 173,895 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.