↓ Skip to main content

Flexible versus rigid endoscopy in the management of esophageal foreign body impaction: systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in World Journal of Emergency Surgery, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Flexible versus rigid endoscopy in the management of esophageal foreign body impaction: systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
World Journal of Emergency Surgery, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13017-018-0203-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Davide Ferrari, Alberto Aiolfi, Gianluca Bonitta, Carlo Galdino Riva, Emanuele Rausa, Stefano Siboni, Francesco Toti, Luigi Bonavina

Abstract

Foreign body (FB) impaction accounts for 4% of emergency endoscopies in clinical practice. Flexible endoscopy (FE) is recommended as the first-line therapeutic option because it can be performed under sedation, is cost-effective, and is well tolerated. Rigid endoscopy (RE) under general anesthesia is less used but may be advantageous in some circumstances. The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy and safety of FE and RE in esophageal FB removal. PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were consulted matching the terms "Rigid endoscopy AND Flexible endoscopy AND foreign bod*". Pooled effect measures were calculated using an inverse-variance weighted or Mantel-Haenszel in random effects meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was evaluated using I2 index and Cochrane Q test. Five observational cohort studies, published between 1993 and 2015, matched the inclusion criteria. One thousand four hundred and two patients were included; FE was performed in 736 patients and RE in 666. Overall, 101 (7.2%) complications occurred. The most frequent complications were mucosal erosion (26.7%), mucosal edema (18.8%), and iatrogenic esophageal perforations (10.9%). Compared to FE, the estimated RE pooled success OR was 1.00 (95% CI 0.48-2.06; p = 1.00). The pooled OR of iatrogenic perforation, other complications, and overall complications were 2.87 (95% CI 0.96-8.61; p = 0.06), 1.09 (95% CI 0.38-3.18; p = 0.87), and 1.50 (95% CI 0.53-4.25; p = 0.44), respectively. There was no mortality. FE and RE are equally safe and effective for the removal of esophageal FB. To provide a tailored or crossover approach, patients should be managed in multidisciplinary centers where expertise in RE is also available. Formal training and certification in RE should probably be re-evaluated.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 75 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 12 16%
Student > Master 8 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Other 5 7%
Student > Postgraduate 5 7%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 30 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 3%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 29 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 26 January 2024.
All research outputs
#3,517,910
of 25,216,325 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Emergency Surgery
#120
of 600 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,026
of 343,699 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Emergency Surgery
#3
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,216,325 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 600 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 343,699 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.