Evidence mapPaperPMID 41364437Full record

Trial reportJAMA network open2025

Combined Gastric Electrical Stimulation and Pyloroplasty in Gastroparesis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Irene Sarosiek, Mohammad Bashashati, Brian R Davis, Karina Espino, Denise Vasquez, Ryan Torelli, Tamis Bright, Jerzy Sarosiek, Jesus R Diaz, Osvaldo Padilla and 2 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03123809 (Combined Gastric Electrical Stimulation), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT03123809 nacompletednot on this map

Combined Gastric Electrical Stimulation (GES) and Pyloroplasty for the Treatment of Gastroparesis: Can Pyloroplasty be Effective Without GES?

TypeinterventionalSponsorTexas Tech University Health Sciences Center, El PasoRan2017 to 2024Enrolled44ConditionsGastroparesisArmsGastric Electrical Stimulation (GES) System
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Irene SarosiekDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, El Paso.
Mohammad BashashatiDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Dell Medical School, The University of Texas at Austin.
Brian R DavisChristus Trinity Clinic, Corpus Christi, Texas.
Karina EspinoDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, El Paso.
Denise VasquezDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, El Paso.
Ryan TorelliPaul L. Foster School of Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, El Paso.
Tamis BrightDivision of Endocrinology, Department of Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, El Paso.
Jerzy SarosiekDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, El Paso.
Jesus R DiazDepartment of Radiology, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, El Paso.
Osvaldo PadillaDepartment of Pathology, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, El Paso.
Alok K DwivediDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Biostatistics and Medical Epidemiology, University of Missouri School of Medicine, Columbia.
Richard W McCallumDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, El Paso.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Patients with gastroparesis who do not respond to medical therapy may require surgical intervention, typically involving pyloroplasty (PP) alone or with implantation of a gastric electrical stimulation (GES) device. Objective: To investigate the outcomes of combining PP with GES in medication-refractory gastroparesis. Design, Setting, and Participants: This double-blind randomized clinical trial included patients who had diabetic or idiopathic gastroparesis. Patients from a US academic gastrointestinal motility clinic, who failed medical therapy, were included from January 10, 2017, to September 20, 2023. Patients were followed up for 6 months. Interventions: Patients with refractory gastroparesis underwent simultaneous implantation of GES with PP and were randomized into PP + GES-ON and PP + GES-OFF groups. In the PP + GES-ON group, the GES was turned on after surgery. In the PP + GES-OFF group, the device was kept off for 3 months and then was turned on for the following 3 months. Main Outcomes and Measures: Symptom scores measured with the Gastroparesis Cardinal Symptom Index (GCSI) and the total symptom score (TSS), gastric emptying, and hospitalization length of stay were recorded and compared at baseline and at 3-month and 6-month follow-up visits. Between-group comparisons at 3 months were performed using the Wilcoxon rank sum test following the intention-to-treat procedure. Results: The study included 38 patients with gastroparesis (24 females [63.2%]; mean [SD] age, 46.7 [13.2] years), of whom 31 (81.6%) had diabetic gastroparesis, and 7 (18.4%) had idiopathic gastroparesis. Patients were randomized to the PP + GES-ON (n = 19) or the PP + GES-OFF (n = 19) group. At 3 months, the improvement from baseline in the GCSI (median [IQR] ON: -2.2 [-2.6 to -1.5] vs median [IQR] OFF: -0.9 [-1.8 to -0.4]; median difference, -1.33 [95% CI, -2.34 to -0.33]; P = .01) and the TSS (median [IQR] ON: -15.0 [-16.0 to -8.0] vs median [IQR] OFF: -3.0 [-10.0 to -1.0]; median difference, -12.00 [95% CI, -17.49 to -6.51]; P = .005) was significantly greater in the PP + GES-ON compared with the PP + GES-OFF group. Both groups exhibited significantly faster and similar gastric emptying results compared with the baseline. When the PP + GES-OFF group had GES activated at 3 months, symptoms improved significantly by 6 months (median [IQR] GCSI at 6 months: 1.2 [0.4-2.5] vs at baseline: 3.3 [2.8-4.1]; median [IQR] TSS at 6 months: 8.0 [2.0-10.0] vs at baseline: 18 [14.0-21.0]), achieving results comparable with those patients who had their GES device on for the full 6 months. These results at 6 months were accompanied by a significant reduction in hospital length of stay (median [IQR] at 6 months: 0 [0-2.0] vs at baseline: 4.1 [0-10.1]) and an excellent safety profile. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, the combination of GES and PP yielded superior outcomes compared with PP alone, resulting in greater alleviation of gastroparesis symptoms and a reduction in hospitalization, which may enhance patient profiling and optimize decision-making for treatments. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03123809.

Indexed as

Electric Stimulation TherapyGastroparesisPyloromyotomyAdultCombined Modality TherapyDouble-Blind MethodFemaleGastric EmptyingHumansMaleMiddle AgedTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID41364437
PMCPMC12690432

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.