Effectiveness of endoscopic cricopharyngeal myotomy in adults with neurological disease: systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of endoscopic cricopharyngeal myotomy on upper oesophageal sphincter dysfunction in adults with upper oesophageal sphincter dysfunction and neurological disease. DATA SOURCES: Published and unpublished studies with a quasi-experimental design investigating endoscopic cricopharyngeal myotomy effects on upper oesophageal sphincter dysfunction in humans were considered eligible. Electronic databases, grey literature and reference lists of included studies were systematically searched. REVIEW METHODS: Data were extracted by two independent reviewers. Methodological quality was assessed independently using the PEDro scale and MINORS tool. RESULTS: Of 2938 records identified, 2 studies were eligible. Risk of bias assessment indicated areas of methodological concern in the literature. Statistical analysis was not possible because of the limited number of eligible studies. CONCLUSION: No determinations could be made regarding endoscopic cricopharyngeal myotomy effectiveness in the cohort of interest. Reliable and valid evidence on the following is required to support increasing clinical usage of endoscopic cricopharyngeal myotomy: optimal candidacy selection; standardised post-operative management protocol; complications; and endoscopic cricopharyngeal myotomy effects on aspiration of food and laryngeal penetration, mean upper oesophageal sphincter resting pressure and quality of life.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".