ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Comparative safety and efficacy of endoscopic band ligation versus endoscopic radiofrequency ablation for gastroesophageal reflux disease.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the long-term safety and efficacy of endoscopic radiofrequency ablation (ERFA) versus endoscopic band ligation (EBL) in the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on the clinical data of 139 patients who underwent endoscopic treatment for GERD. According to the treatment modality, patients were divided into an ERFA group (n = 50) and an EBL group (n = 89). Primary outcome measures included the DeMeester score, GerdQ score, symptom relief rate, and complication rate.
resultsNo significant differences were found in baseline characteristics (all P > 0.05). Key results include (1) Intraoperative blood loss was 1.04 ± 0.20 mL (ERFA) vs. 1.10 ± 0.75 mL (EBL). (2) Both groups showed reduced DeMeester scores: ERFA from 28.16 ± 20.01 to 6.77 ± 3.95 and EBL from 26.18 ± 13.39 to 6.26 ± 4.33 (both P < 0.001). (3) GERD-Q scores improved: ERFA from 11.84 ± 2.92 to 3.58 ± 2.75 and EBL from 12.13 ± 2.70 to 3.54 ± 3.05 (both P < 0.001). (4) Symptom relief was 48.0% (ERFA) vs. 58.4% (EBL). (5) Complications were low: 2 cases (4.0%) bleeding in ERFA; 3 cases (3.4%) bleeding; and 1 case (1.1%) perforation in EBL, with no significant difference between groups (P = 0.677). (6) Complete drug discontinuation rates were 72.0% (ERFA) and 73.0% (EBL). (7) Mean LES pressure was 15.15 ± 5.99 mmHg (ERFA) vs. 14.81 ± 6.76 mmHg (EBL).
conclusionBoth ERFA and EBL are safe and efficacious treatments for GERD. Three-year follow-up data indicate comparable efficacy between the two approaches in symptom control.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41644644What 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.