ArticleWorld journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy2025
Efficacy and safety of endoscopic gastroplasty for treatment of obesity: An overview of comparative meta-analyses.
Article in World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Minimally invasive approaches to obesity: Evaluating the efficacy and safety of endoscopic gastroplasty.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2025Article
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
backgroundThere is a scarcity of evidence and systematic reviews on endoscopic gastroplasty (EG) compared to other management options for the treatment of obesity.
aimTo assess the published meta-analyses through a systematic review approach and provide further insight into the current status of available evidence through a critical appraisal.
methodsPubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to November 2022. The meta-analyses that compared the efficacy and safety of EG to other interventions were considered for this overview. The outcomes of interest were total body weight loss (TBWL), excessive weight loss, and average weight loss along with occurrence of adverse effects. Methodological quality, heterogeneity, and limitations were also reviewed.
resultsA total of six meta-analyses out of 364 records were considered for this review with a major contribution from the United States. Overall methodological quality of included studies were moderate to good. EG treatments were significantly better in terms of TBWL, excessive weight loss, and average weight loss. However, there was no significant difference between endoscopic transoral outlet reduction and full-thickness suturing plus argon plasma mucosal coagulation. Lack of comparative studies and randomized trials, lack of long-term follow-up, reporting bias, selection bias, lack of control groups, and considerable level of heterogeneity were the major limitations in the available evidence.
conclusionThough EG was significantly effective for treatment of obesity, there is limited comparative evidence on this topic. High-quality well-controlled evidence is required to strengthen the current evidence base on EG treatment for obesity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.