Introduction
Methods
Results
Study | Study design | Country | Years of study | Sample size | PARM | Follow-up period | Reported outcome | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Type | Dose | Duration | |||||||
Allin et al. (2014) [25] | Retrospective cohortMulticenter | UK and Ireland | 2008–2009 | PARM 57 Control 19 | H2 blocker 73% PPI 16% | NA | NA | 1 year | Stricture diagnosed by consultant |
Murase et al. (2015) [26] | Retrospective cohortSingle center | Japan | PARM 2010-2013 Control 2004–2009 | PARM 13 Control 14 | H2 blocker | 1 mg/kg/day | At least 6 months | 1 year | Stricture required dilatation |
Stenstrom et al. (2017) [27] | Retrospective cohortSingle center | Sweden | PARM 2001-2014 Control 1983–1995 | PARM 65 Control 66 | PPI | 2 mg/kg/day | 3 months (2001–2009)12 months (2010–2014) | at least 1 year | Stricture required dilatation |
Donoso (2016) [28] | Retrospective cohortSingle center | Sweden | PARM 2005-2013 Control 1994–2004 | PARM 57 Control 71 | PPI | 1 mg/kg/day | Median 18 months | 1 to 5 years | Stricture required dilatation |
Study | Long gap (%) | Type of EA(C/A/other) | Anastomotic leak (%) | Anastomotic tension (%) | Primary anastomosis (%) | Birthweight(< 1500 g/1500–2500 g/>2500 g) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Allin et al. (2014) [25] | PARM | NA | 57/0/0 | NA | NA | NA | NA |
Control | NA | 19/0/0 | NA | NA | NA | NA | |
Murase et al. (2015) [26] | PARM | 7.7 (1/13) | 13/0/0 | 7.7 (1/13) | NA | 100 (13/13) | 2/6/5 |
Control | 7.1 (1/14) | 14/0/0 | 7.1 (1/14) | NA | 100 (14/14) | 0/8/6 | |
Stenstrom et al. (2017) [27] | PARM | NA | 63/2/0 | 10.8 (7/65) | NA | 100 (65/65) | 3/14/48* |
Control | NA | NA** | 15.2 (10/66) | NA | 100 (66/66) | 5/26/35 | |
Donoso (2016) [28] | PARM | 14.0% (8/57) | 45/5/7 | 7.0 (4/57) | 33.3% (19/57)* | 78.9% (45/57) | 3/20/34 |
Control | 7.0% (5/71) | 61/5/5 | 7.0 (5/71) | 52.1% (37/71) | 85.9% (61/71) | 5/20/46 |
Quality assessment | No.of patients | Effect | Quality | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
№ of studies | Study design | Risk of bias | Inconsistency | Indirectness | Imprecision | Other considerations | PARM | Control | Relative | Absolute | |
(95% CI) | (95% CI) | ||||||||||
Esophageal stricture | |||||||||||
4 | Observational studies | Not serious | Not serious | Not serious | Seriousa | None | 86/192 (44.8%) | 75/170 (44.1%) | OR 1.14 | 33 More per 1000 | ⨁◯◯◯ |
(0.61 to 2.13) | (From 116 fewer to 186 more) | Very low |
Study | Selection | Comparability | Outcome | Score | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Representativeness of the exposed cohort | Selection of the non exposed cohort | Ascertainment of exposure | Demonstration that outcome of interest was not present at start of study | Comparability of cohorts on the basis of the design or analysis | Outcome | Assessment of outcome | Was follow-up long enough for outcomes to occur | Adequacy of follow-up of cohorts | ||
Allin et al. (2014) [25] | ✦ | ✦ | ✦ | ✦ | – | Stricture | ✦ | ✦ | ✦ | 7 |
Murase et al. (2015) [26] | ✦ | ✦ | ✦ | ✦ | ✦✦ | Stricture | ✦ | ✦ | ✦ | 9 |
Stenstrom et al. (2017) [27] | ✦ | ✦ | ✦ | ✦ | ✦ | Stricture | ✦ | ✦ | ✦ | 8 |
Donoso (2016) [28] | ✦ | ✦ | ✦ | ✦ | ✦✦ | Stricture | ✦ | ✦ | – | 8 |