↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Laparoscopic esophageal myotomy versus pneumatic dilation in the treatment of idiopathic achalasia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
Title
Laparoscopic esophageal myotomy versus pneumatic dilation in the treatment of idiopathic achalasia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Published in
Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology, September 2017
DOI 10.2147/ceg.s130449
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ramkaji Baniya, Sunil Upadhaya, Jahangir Khan, Suresh Kumar Subedi, Tabrez Shaik Mohammed, Balvant K Ganatra, Ghassan Bachuwa

Abstract

Achalasia is a primary esophageal motility disorder of unknown etiology associated with abnormalities in peristalsis and lower esophageal sphincter relaxation. The disease is incurable; however, definitive treatment procedures like pneumatic dilation (PD)/balloon dilation and laparoscopic esophageal myotomy (LEM) are performed to relieve dysphagia and related symptoms. Currently, there is paucity of data comparing the outcomes of these procedures. The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare the short- and long-term success rates of PD and LEM. A thorough systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, clinicaltrials.gov, and Cochrane library was conducted for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the outcomes of PD versus LEM in the treatment of achalasia. The Mantel-Haenszel method and random effect model were used to analyze the data. RCTs with outcome data at 3-month, 1-year, and 5-year intervals were analyzed. A total of 437,378 and 254 patients at 3-month, 1-year, and 5-year intervals were analyzed for outcome data. At 3 months and 1 year, PD was not as effective as LEM (odds ratio [OR]: 0.50; confidence interval [CI] 0.31-0.82; P = 0.009 and OR: 0.47; CI 0.22-0.99; P = 0.21) but at 5 years, one procedure was non-inferior to the other (OR: 0.62; 0.33-1.19; P = 0.34). PD was as effective as LEM in relieving symptoms of achalasia in the long-term.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 29%
Student > Postgraduate 4 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 14%
Other 1 5%
Student > Master 1 5%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 3 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 71%
Unspecified 1 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Unknown 3 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 23 October 2017.
All research outputs
#7,052,391
of 23,567,572 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology
#99
of 314 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#108,473
of 317,252 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology
#2
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,567,572 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 314 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 317,252 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 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.