Evidence Hub

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic cardia peripheral tissue scar formation (ECSF) for the treatment of refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease: A systematic review with meta-analysis

Chaoyi Shi, Gesang Zhuoma, Lina Ying, Zhenyu Zhang, Liyang Cui, Ruifang Li, Jun Zhang

Medicine, 2024

1,732 participants · 2 citations

Abstract

Background: Endoscopic treatment is increasingly used for refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease (rGERD). Unlike the mechanism of conventional surgical fundoplication, gastroesophageal junction ligation, anti-reflux mucosal intervention, and radiofrequency ablation have extremely similar anti-reflux mechanisms; hence, we collectively refer to them as endoscopic cardia peripheral tissue scar formation (ECSF). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the safety and efficacy of ECSF in treating rGERD. Methods: We performed a comprehensive search of several databases, including PubMed, Embase, Medline, China Knowledge Network, and Wanfang, to ensure a systematic approach for data collection between January 2011 and July 2023. Forest plots were used to summarize and combine the GERD-health-related quality of life (HRQL), gastroesophageal reflux questionnaire score, and DeMeester scores, acid exposure time, lower esophageal sphincter pressure, esophagitis, proton pump inhibitors use, and patient satisfaction. Results: This study comprised 37 studies, including 1732 patients. After ECSF, significant improvement in gastroesophageal reflux disease health-related quality of life score (mean difference [MD] = 18.27 95% CI: 14.81–21.74), gastroesophageal reflux questionnaire score (MD = 4.85 95% CI: 3.96–5.75), DeMeester score (MD = 42.34, 95% CI: 31.37–53.30), acid exposure time (MD = 7.98, 95% CI: 6.03–9.92), and lower esophageal sphincter pressure was observed…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 1,732 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free