Skip to main content
Download PDF

A global bibliometric and visualized analysis of the status and trends of gastroparesis research

European Journal of Medical Research volume 28, Article number: 543 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Gastroparesis has a substantial impact on the quality of life but has limited treatment options, which makes it a public health concern. No bibliometric studies on gastroparesis have been published thus far. Thus, this article aims to summarize and analyze research hotspots to provide a reference for clinical researchers.

Materials and methods

Gastroparesis-related research articles were searched in the Web of Science Core Collection (WOSCC), and relevant information was extracted after screening. A total of 1033 documents were analyzed with the bibliometric method using Microsoft Excel, Citespace, and VOSviewer.

Results

Overall, our search retrieved 1033 papers contributed by 966 research institutions from 53 countries. Since 1980, publications in this field have increased rapidly. United States (n = 645) and Temple University (n = 122) were the most productive country and institution, respectively. Parkman, with 96 publications, was the most prominent author.

Conclusions

Research hotspots in gastroparesis can be summarized into four domains: innovation in diagnostic modalities, change of oral therapeutic agents, choice of surgical interventions, and pathological mechanisms. Future research on gastroparesis should focus on the quality of life of patients, diagnostic techniques, pyloromyotomy, and transpyloric stent placement.

Introduction

Gastroparesis is a syndrome characterized by delayed gastric emptying (DGE) in the absence of mechanical gastric obstruction [1]. Common symptoms include nausea, vomiting, postprandial fullness, and abdominal distention [2]. About 72% of patients with gastroparesis present with abdominal pain, which is easily overlooked in clinical practice. However, some patients have more insidious symptoms or no discomfort [3]. Epidemiological surveys have shown that the prevalence rate is 13.8 per 100,000 people in the UK [4] and 24.2 per 100,000 people in the US [5]. Nevertheless, in clinical practice, the accurate prevalence of gastroparesis is difficult to determine: only one in nine patients with high-probability gastroparesis receives an accurate diagnosis [6]. Both gastroparesis and functional dyspepsia are gastric neuromuscular disorders, and because of the similarity of their symptoms, they are often confused with each other [7]. The current understanding of the etiology of gastroparesis recognizes three main types of gastroparesis: idiopathic gastroparesis (IG), diabetic gastroparesis (DG), and postoperative gastroparesis (PG) [8]. IG is the most common type of gastroparesis, predominantly affecting female patients [9]. Patients with DG account for about one-third of all cases of gastroparesis [10]. Hyperglycemia has been reported to increase the risk of gastroparesis, which occurs within 10 years of diagnosis in about 5.2% of patients with type 1 diabetes and a lower percentage of those with type 2 diabetes [11]. In addition, there is a link between gastroparesis and Parkinson’s disease [10]. Although the exact pathogenesis of gastroparesis has not yet been fully understood, it is thought to involve the loss of vagal nerve and interstitial cell function [12]. Gastroparesis reduces patients' quality of life and places a significant financial burden on the healthcare system [13].

Bibliometrics is a quantitative method of analyzing the characteristics and trends of research in a given field using previously published academic literature; it was first introduced by Pritchard in 1969 [14]. This method has been widely employed in the fields of information science, chemistry, and physics and has new potential in medicine [15]. No such research that reviews and analyzes the existing research results in the field of gastroparesis has been published so far. An assessment of the current state of research in the gastroparesis field is necessary.

Based on the above information, this study aims to solve the following questions:

  1. (1)

    What are the annual trends of publications in the field of gastroparesis?

  2. (2)

    Which countries, authors, and institutions focus on and contribute the most to the field of gastroparesis?

  3. (3)

    Which journals are more willing to publish articles on gastroparesis?

  4. (4)

    What are the hot research topics in the field of gastroparesis and where are the future research prospects likely to emerge?

Through this study, we hope to help provide essential learning resources for clinicians and investigators less familiar with the field, as well as gain insight into new perspectives and foundations for the future in gastroparesis research.

Methods

Data sources and search strategies

Web of Science (WOS) is the earliest, most comprehensive, and most detailed database in the world [16], and it has had a significant impact in the biomedical field [17]. We conducted a search for all publications in the gastroparesis field in the Science Citation Index-Expanded (SCIE) database in the WOS Core Collection (WOSCC), for the period spanning from database inception to November 16, 2022. The search terms were formulated based on the clinical experience, medical subject headings (MeSH), and published articles [18, 19], and a title search was finally performed on the retrieved articles to avoid the inclusion of a large number of unrelated articles [20,21,22]. The search formula was finally set as follows: TI = (Gastropares*) OR TI = (Gastric Stas*). The language of the article was limited to English, and the type of article was set to either research or review. Two researchers (ML and NG) independently performed the data search, and any differences in opinions were resolved by discussion. On screening the retrieved articles with the selection criteria, 1033 publications in the field of gastroparesis were finally included in the analysis (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flow chart of literature screening

Full size image

Data collection

Data regarding the following parameters were downloaded from WOSCC for the publications identified: title, author, journal, institution, publication year, and keywords. The data were exported in plain text format. Impact factor (IF) and journal citation report (JCR) category were obtained through JCR Science Edition (2021) [17]. To avoid bias caused by database updates, data retrieval and export were chosen to be completed on the same day (November 16, 2022).

Statistical analysis

Analyses of descriptive statistics for countries, institutions, authors, journals, citations, and keywords were performed using Microsoft Excel (Version 2019; Microsoft Corporation; Washington, United States) [23] to produce world heat maps, line graphs, and bar charts. In addition, visual graphs of collaboration networks and keyword clusters were constructed using the VOSviewer (Version 1.6.18; Leiden University; Leiden, Netherlands), which was developed by Van Eck and Waltman at Leiden University in the Netherlands. In the cooperation network, the number of publications determines the size of the node, the connection between nodes indicates the cooperation relationship, and the thickness of the connection reflects the strength of the cooperation [24]. Keyword burst analysis was performed using CiteSpace (Version V; Drexel University; Pennsylvania, United States), to determine the research hotspots and frontier trends from the time dimension [25]. The software parameters were set as follows: time slice (1990–2022), years per slice (1), and selection strategy (g-index, k = 25) [26].

In addition, the following indicators were used to examine the output and quality of publications in this study: (1) total publications (TP): total number of publications during the observation period; (2) total citations (TC): total citations of publications; (3) TC/TP: average number of citations per publication (CPP).

Results

Publication outputs and citation trend

After applying the defined search formula and screening criteria, 1033 publications, including 888 articles (85.96%) and 145 reviews (14.04%), were extracted. Figure 2 shows the annual trends in the number of publications and citations, and the annual growth curve of publications was expressed as a mathematical function (y = 1.0613e0.0808x). The calculated R2 of 0.9009 suggested a strong correlation between the number of annual publications and the year of publication [24]. The first article in this field was authored by Kassander and published in 1958 under the title “Gastroparesis” in Annals of Internal Medicine [27]. Between 1958 and 1987, articles were published intermittently, with the annual number of articles being less than 10; subsequently, the annual number of publications increased and peaked at 67 in 2021. A similar upward trend was also seen in the annual citations since 1979 and peaked in 2013 (n = 2174). These findings indicate that research in the gastroparesis field is gaining attention and will continue to grow in the coming years.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Annual number of the published publications in gastroparesis research

Full size image

Contributions of countries

Fifty-three countries or regions participated in gastroparesis-related publications. The USA was the highest contributor, accounting for 645, i.e., 62.44%, of the total publications, which was significantly greater than the contributions of other countries. USA was followed by China (n = 86), Australia (n = 40), and Belgium (n = 38). The country that ranked first in terms of CPP value was Belgium (n = 79.47), indicating the high quality of the published research as well as the reference value of the country (Table 1).

Table 1 The top 10 most productive countries in gastroparesis research
Full size table

Regional differences in the gastroparesis research field were observed worldwide, with a higher participation from North America, Western Europe, and East Asia (Fig. 3A). The USA was found to be at the center of the cooperation network, maintaining cooperation with 34 countries (Fig. 3C). Although an annual increase was noted in the participation of China and Australia during the recent years, these countries may still have some potential for enhanced cooperation, considering the USA’s long-standing participation and contribution (Fig. 3B).

Fig. 3
figure 3

The distribution of countries in gastroparesis research. A Distribution of gastroparesis publications in the world map. According to the color gradient in the lower right corner, the color of each country represents the amount of literature published. B The distribution trend of the top 3 countries by year. C Overlay visualization map of co-authorship among countries

Full size image

Contributions of institutions

In all, 966 institutions were involved in publishing in the gastroparesis field, with Temple University contributing 122 publications and accounting for 11.81% of the total publications, a number significantly greater than that of any other institution, followed by Mayo Clinic (n = 103), Texas Tech University (n = 65), and University of Louisville (n = 62) (Table 2). Among them, Mayo Clinic was at the center of the collaborative network, maintaining collaborative relationships with 41 institutions; the closest relationship was with Temple University, with the two institutions collaborating over a total of 52 publications (Fig. 4).

Table 2 The top 10 most productive institutions in gastroparesis research
Full size table
Fig. 4
figure 4

Overlay visualization map of co-authorship among institutions with five or more publications

Full size image

Journal analysis

Research in the field of gastroparesis has been published in 324 journals. Table 3 shows the ten journals with the highest number of articles, covering 397 articles, i.e., 38.43% of the total number of articles. Neurogastroenterology & Motility published the most articles (n = 89), followed by Digestive Diseases and Sciences (n = 83), American Journal of Gastroenterology (n = 40). Among the publishing journals, Gastroenterology (IF = 33.88) had the highest IF, while three journals, namely, American Journal of Gastroenterology, Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, have IF scores above 10. In addition, six journals belonged to the Q1 category, which indicates that research in the gastroparesis field has attracted the attention of many high-quality journals.

Table 3 The top 10 Journals with the largest number of publications in gastroparesis research
Full size table

Contributions of authors

The data analysis revealed that 3879 researchers have been involved in the research on gastroparesis. Among them, Parkman contributed 96 publications, accounting for 9.29% of the total publications, followed by Abell (n = 52), McCallum (n = 51), and Farrugia (n = 43) (Table 4). In addition, numerous tight-knit research teams have been formed in this field, such as the Farrugia, Pasricha, and Koch team from Temple University, which has contributed to 33 publications pertaining to a wide range of studies involving drug efficacy evaluation [28, 29] and analysis of relevant factors [30, 31] (Fig. 5).

Table 4 The top 10 authors and co-cited authors in gastroparesis research
Full size table
Fig. 5
figure 5

Network visualization map of authors with five or more publications

Full size image

Citations

Highly cited papers tend to have a significant impact in a particular field [32] and reflect the hot spots and depth of research in the field [33]. In the context of gastroparesis, the article “Improvement of gastric emptying in diabetic gastroparesis by erythromycin: Preliminary studies” published by Janssens in 1990 is the most cited article. This was also the first paper to examine the value of erythromycin in the treatment of DG. The study revealed that erythromycin shortened the gastric emptying time to normal for both liquids and solids, thus providing important evidence for the clinical application and further study of erythromycin [34]. The publications that are ranked second and third in terms of citations are both academic guidelines, with the 2004 article “American Gastroenterological Association technical review on the diagnosis and treatment of gastroparesis” being the first national-level guideline in the field of gastroparesis, offering detailed information on the diagnosis and treatment of the disease. The 2013 article “Clinical guideline: management of gastroparesis” further improved the previous guidelines based on the latest research findings. For example, this article clarifies the three main causes of gastroparesis, and nutritional maintenance and glycemic control have been added to the treatment. In addition, the epidemiological characteristics of the disease [10, 35] and the efficacy of gastric electrical stimulation (GES) [36, 37] are also focus points for researchers in the field of gastroparesis (Table 5, Fig. 6A). In addition, co-citation analysis was performed, and the results are shown in Table 6 and Fig. 6B.

Table 5 The top 10 documents in citation analysis of publications in gastroparesis research
Full size table
Fig. 6
figure 6

The distribution of citations in gastroparesis research. A Network visualization map of citation among documents. B Network visualization map of co-citation among documents

Full size image
Table 6 The top 10 documents in co-citation analysis of publications in gastroparesis research
Full size table

Keywords analysis

Research hotspots: co-occurrence and clustering analysis of keywords

High-frequency keywords represent popular topics in a research field [38]. In the current study, 2487 keywords were included. Fifty of these keywords were used at least 15 times. Table 7 shows the top 20 keywords in terms of frequency. Based on the keyword co-occurrence network, the keywords can be divided into five clusters, according to the color (Fig. 7): Cluster 1 (red), diagnostic methods; Cluster 2 (blue), surgical interventions; Cluster 3 (green), pathological mechanism; Cluster 4 (yellow), pharmacological intervention; and Cluster 5 (purple), others, involving “acid breath test,” “botulinum toxin injection,” “double-blind,” etc.

Table 7 The top 20 keywords in gastroparesis research
Full size table
Fig. 7
figure 7

Co-occurrence network visualization map of keyword

Full size image

Research fronts: keyword burst analysis

Keyword burst analysis is used to determine the evolution of research hotspots by analyzing the temporal change characteristics in burst words [39]. Figure 8 shows the top 20 keywords in terms of burst intensity for the period of 1990–2022. The strongest keyword is pyloromyotomy (8.89), and the keyword with the longest burst duration is cisapride (1997–2006). Furthermore, the keywords that continue to explode until 2022 are quality of life, pyloromyotomy, transpyloric stent placement, and diagnosis, which are areas of cutting-edge research in the field of gastroparesis.

Fig. 8
figure 8

Top 20 keywords with the strongest citation bursts

Full size image

Discussion

In this study, we used the bibliometric method and retrieved 1033 publications related to gastroparesis from the WOSCC database. We analyzed the contributions of countries, institutions, authors, and journals in the gastroparesis field and summarized the research hotspots and future directions. Our search revealed that 53 countries, 966 institutions, 3879 authors, and 324 journals are involved in research in the field of gastroparesis. The United States undoubtedly occupies the leading position, both in terms of the volume of articles published and international collaborations, and it is an important initiator and promoter of gastroparesis-related research. The Temple University, with its research team represented by Farrugia, Pasricha, and Koch, has produced the highest number of articles, making it a regional research center.

A combined analysis of keyword frequency and keyword clustering reveals that the research hotspots mainly revolve around four areas: innovation in diagnostic modalities, change of oral therapeutic agents, choice of surgical interventions, and pathological mechanism. From the analysis of keyword bursts, it can be predicted that future research will mainly be focused on quality of life, diagnostic techniques, pyloromyotomy, and transpyloric stent placement.

Innovation in the diagnostic approach

The diagnosis of gastroparesis is based on three parameters: (1) symptoms of dyspepsia associated with gastroparesis; (2) absence of abnormalities on gastroscopy; and (3) evidence of the occurrence of DGE [40, 41]. Questionnaires, such as the Gastroparesis Cardinal Symptom Index (GCSI) [42] and the GCSI-Daily Diary (GCSI-DD), have been developed to quantify the severity of symptoms. Gastric emptying scintigraphy (GESc) is currently the diagnostic tool most commonly used for the detection of DGE; in addition, wireless motion capsules (WMC) and gastric emptying breath test (GEBT) have also been clinically validated for their diagnostic value [43].

In GESc, a gamma camera is used to detect the migration of radioisotopes, thereby reflecting the transport characteristics of substances in the gastrointestinal tract [44]. The use of GESc for the investigation of gastroparesis patients was first proposed in 1966 [45]. Because it provides an objective measure of gastric emptying (GE) [46] and offers the advantage of being noninvasive, it has now become the gold standard for the diagnosis of gastroparesis [47]. However, previously, the test lacked standardization due to variations in the food taken and the duration of imaging [48]. This concern was overcome in 2008, when the American Neurogastroenterology and Motility Society and the Society of Nuclear Medicine published the world’s first consensus recommendations on GESc [49], detailing the steps to be taken before and after the examination. In particular, these recommendations provide detailed descriptions of the food composition and ratio of the GE meal, the time and angle of the shot, and the normal values of the parameters’ investigations during the examination. However, low compliance with the GES consensus recommendations is still very common and is a major cause of the underdiagnosis and misdiagnosis of gastroparesis [50]. In addition, some patients may not be able to tolerate solid food [51], and some studies have even shown that liquid GE studies have greater diagnostic value when compared to GE studies with solid food [52]. All these discrepancies have caused considerable problems for the clinical application of GESc.

GESc is not recommended in certain populations, such as children and pregnant women, because of the risk associated with radiation exposure [53]. The procedure also takes a long time per patient, making the test inefficient [54]. Thus, GEBT has become a safe and effective alternative [55]. GEBT is easy to operate, can be performed anywhere, and can be transferred to the field for analysis [56]. In 1993, Ghoos et al. [57] first detected the GE rate by carbon-labeled octanoic acid breath test. Their study creatively proposed three parameters for analysis, namely, GE coefficient, gastric half-emptying time, and stagnation period, and also established GEBT as a reliable and noninvasive test. However, patients with combined diabetes or scleroderma may have false-negative results with GEBT [58]. Another limitation of GEBT is that it does not allow for the identification of the specific area of injury [59]. Apart from GESc and GEBT, WMC is a commonly used technique for assessing gastrointestinal dynamics [44]. The WMC sensor allows for continuous data collection of pH, pressure, and temperature of the gastrointestinal tract for up to 5 days [60]. A study comparing GESc and WMC in gastroparesis assessment suggests that GESc has higher sensitivity, sensitivity, and specificity [61]. However, WMC has a higher diagnostic rate and also identifies abnormalities in extragastric transport [62].

Change of oral therapeutic agents

With regard to the management of gastroparesis, there is a lack of effective therapeutic medications. Although there are a limited number of clinical studies suggesting superior efficacy of dopamine antagonists over placebo, most of these studies were conducted more than 20 years ago [63]. Thus far, metoclopramide is the only drug approved for marketing in the United States for the treatment of gastroparesis [64]. Metoclopramide is a dopamine receptor antagonist [65] that has antiemetic properties along with prokinetic activity [66]. Its therapeutic efficiency has been confirmed by clinical studies [67, 68]. The dosage form of metoclopramide was upgraded from a tablet to a nasal spray, to prevent vomiting associated with oral intake; this change did not result in any significant decrease in efficacy, although there were gender differences in effects [69]. Nevertheless, the adverse effects of the drug continue to be reported. For example, a study of 34,685 diabetic patients treated with metoclopramide found that the risk of Parkinson’s syndrome increased with the duration of treatment, regardless of whether or not the drug was used for more than 3 months [70]. In fact, in 2009, the USA Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning that metoclopramide use may lead to irreversible delayed-onset dyskinesia [71]. Dopamine receptor antagonists commonly used in clinical practice also include domperidone [72] and levosulpiride [73]. Another class of drugs used to treat gastroparesis comprises the 5-hydroxytryptamine-4 (5-HT4) receptor agonists [74]. However, non-specific 5-HT4 receptor agonists tend to cause cardiac conduction abnormalities [75], which was a major reason for the withdrawal of cisapride from the US market in 2000 [76]. Prucalopride is highly specific for the 5HT4 receptor, making it safer than earlier 5-HT4 receptor agonists [77]. In a 4-week randomized controlled trial, gastroparesis patients treated with prucalopride showed better GE and significant improvement in symptoms, quality of life, and survival, with only three patients developing adverse effects such as nausea and vomiting [78]. Aprepitant is a neurokinin-1 receptor (NK1R) antagonist previously used for the prevention and treatment of chemotherapy and postoperative nausea [29]. Although current evidence does not show a positive effect of aprepitant on accelerating GE [79], some case reports suggest that aprepitant may be useful in the short term to relieve nausea and vomiting in patients with gastroparesis, while awaiting further evaluation and treatment [80].

Choice of surgical interventions

Medication is often slow to take effect, with one-third of patients showing no improvement until 1 year after the intervention [81]. The adverse effects of medications also affect the compliance of patients [82]. High-frequency GES is being used as a treatment option for medically refractory gastroparesis [83]. As early as 1963, Bilgutay Am et al. hypothesized that gastrointestinal motility could be induced by electrical stimulation, in analogy to myocardial electrical stimulation for heart block. This was confirmed by experiments in dogs [84]. Since then, animal and clinical trials have been carried out to elucidate the characteristics of the electrical activity of the gastric muscle as well as the optimal frequency and duration of stimulation required [85, 86]. The clinical use of low-frequency pulses is limited by their high power consumption. Therefore, currently, high-frequency pulses are the main form of electrical pulses used in GES [87]. Despite this, the practical application of theory is very difficult. The first GES system, Enterra™ (Medtronics, USA), was not approved by the USA FDA until 2000. To date, this device remains the only one of its kind [88]. A 1-cm-long electrode is surgically placed 10 cm proximal to the pylorus, and the wire is connected to an implanted generator to deliver high-frequency electrical pulses to the stomach, with an amplitude of 5 mA at intervals of 72 ms [89]. A recent meta-analysis suggests that GES treatment significantly improves the frequency of vomiting, gastrointestinal symptoms, and quality of life in patients [90]. A 10-year follow-up found that patients showed significant weight gain after GES, and J-tubes of 89% of the patients could be removed [91]. McCallum et al [92] suggest that GES may be achieved by activating vagal afferent pathways and that it should not be understood simply as “pacing.” GES thus represents a therapeutic option for patients with refractory gastroparesis. However, due to its high cost and invasive nature, the choice of GES for a given patient should be made with great caution [93].

Gastric per oral endoscopic esophageal myotomy (G-POEM) is a recently developed surgical treatment technique. This technique was derived from the successful operation used for the treatment of esophageal achalasia by Inoue et al [94]. Later, in 2013, Mouen A Khashab et al. [95] were the first to report the use of G-POEM for the treatment of gastroparesis. Intraoperative investigation indicates that the length of myotomy was usually shorter than that of cardia achalasia, usually between 1.5 and 2 cm [96]. A meta-analysis of 332 patients treated with G-POEM found a clinical success rate of 75.8% and 85.1%, as determined by GCSI and GES results, respectively [97]. Intraoperative complication rates of G-POEM can reach 5.1%, with postoperative complication rates of 6.8% [98]. The rate of improvement in GCSI appeared to decrease with an increase in the duration of postoperative follow-up, but remained above 50% at 1 year postoperatively [99]. Meanwhile, the mean duration of surgery and hospitalization was significantly lower in G-POEM compared with pyloromyotomy/pyloroplasty. [100]

A neurotoxic protein produced by Clostridium botulinum [101], botulinum toxin, affects cholinergic nerve contractility at low doses and inhibits acetylcholine release. Intrapyloric botulinum toxin A injection (IPBTI) is administered to resolve the imbalance between acetylcholine and nitric oxide [102] levels, thereby relieving pyloric spasm in patients with gastroparesis [103]; this is because pyloric spasm is thought to be a possible contributing factor to the development of DG [104]. However, although several reports suggest the efficacy of IPBTI [105, 106], a systematic review of pertinent reports yielded contradictory results, highlighting the low quality of studies currently conducted around IPBTI [107].

The epidemiology of gastroparesis

In addition to the above research hotspots, we found that epidemiological terms such as quality of life and prevalence also appeared as high-frequency keywords. The Rome Foundation Global Epidemiology Study (RFGES) is a large clinical study involving 33 countries and 73,076 subjects, with research findings published in Gastroenterology in 2021. It assessed the prevalence and burden of functional gastrointestinal disorders by providing the Rome IV Diagnostic Questionnaire and an 80-item supplemental questionnaire [108]. Huang et al. used the RFGES database to further analyze and obtain epidemiological evidence on the gastroparesis-like symptoms (GPLS) population. The global prevalence of GPLS was found to be 0.9% in general, with higher prevalence in the United States, Italy, Brazil, Russia, Canada, South Korea, and China than in other countries, which is consistent with the results of the country contribution of our study. In addition, GPLS patients often present an overlap of symptoms with epigastric pain syndrome or irritable bowel syndrome, which explains why functional dyspepsia ranked the third in the frequency of keywords [2].

There are some limitations to this study. First, the literature search is limited to the WOSCC database, and although WOSCC can cover the majority of studies in the field of gastroparesis, there may still be individual qualified literature excluded. Second, as the database is dynamically updated, our study should be updated at the same time. Third, non-English publications are excluded, which may lead to retrieval incompleteness.

Conclusion

The number of publications on gastroparesis has steadily increased over the last four decades. The USA, Temple University, and Parkman were the most productive country, institution, and author respectively. Neurogastroenterology & Motility published the most articles. These publications have mainly covered four major domains, namely, innovation in diagnostic modalities, change of oral therapeutic agents, choice of surgical interventions, and pathological mechanisms. Future research on gastroparesis should focus on the quality of life of patients, diagnostic techniques, pyloromyotomy, and transpyloric stent placement.

Availability of data and materials

Data is available upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

5-HT4:

5-Hydroxytryptamine-4

CPP:

Number of citations per publication

DG:

Diabetic gastroparesis

DGE:

Delayed gastric emptying

FDA:

Food and drug administration

GCSI:

Gastroparesis cardinal symptom index

GCSI-DD:

GCSI-daily diary

GE:

Gastric emptying

GEBT:

Gastric emptying breath test

GES:

Gastric electrical stimulation

GESc:

Gastric emptying scintigraphy

GPLS:

Gastroparesis-like symptoms

G-POEM:

Gastric per oral endoscopic esophageal myotomy

IF:

Impact factor

IG:

Idiopathic gastroparesis

IPBTI:

Intrapyloric botulinum toxin a injection

JCR:

Journal citation report

MeSH:

Medical subject headings

NK1R:

Neurokinin-1 receptor

PG:

Postoperative gastroparesis

RFGES:

Rome Foundation Global Epidemiology Study

SCIE:

Science citation index-expanded

TC:

Total citations

UK:

United Kingdom

USA:

United States of America

TP:

Total publications

WMC:

Wireless motion capsules

WOS:

Web of science

WOSCC:

The WOS Core Collection

References

  1. Camilleri M, Bharucha AE, Farrugia G. Epidemiology, mechanisms, and management of diabetic gastroparesis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011;9(1):5-e7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Huang IH, Schol J, Khatun R, Carbone F, Van den Houte K, Colomier E, et al. Worldwide prevalence and burden of gastroparesis-like symptoms as defined by the united European gastroenterology (UEG) and European society for neurogastroenterology and motility (ESNM) consensus on gastroparesis. United Eur Gastroenterol J. 2022;10(8):888–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kim KH, Lee MS, Choi TY, Kim TH. Acupuncture for symptomatic gastroparesis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;12(12): CD009676.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ye Y, Jiang B, Manne S, Moses PL, Almansa C, Bennett D, et al. Epidemiology and outcomes of gastroparesis, as documented in general practice records, in the United Kingdom. Gut. 2021;70(4):644–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Jung HK, Choung RS, Locke GR 3rd, Schleck CD, Zinsmeister AR, Szarka LA, et al. The incidence, prevalence, and outcomes of patients with gastroparesis in Olmsted County, Minnesota, from 1996 to 2006. Gastroenterology. 2009;136:1225–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Rey E, Choung RS, Schleck CD, Zinsmeister AR, Talley NJ, Locke GR 3rd. Prevalence of hidden gastroparesis in the community: the gastroparesis “iceberg.” J Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2012;18:34–42.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kim BJ, Kuo B. Gastroparesis and functional dyspepsia: a blurring distinction of pathophysiology and treatment. J Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2019;25(1):27–35.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hasler WL. Gastroparesis. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2012;28(6):621–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Parkman HP, Yates K, Hasler WL, Nguyen L, Pasricha PJ, Snape WJ, et al. Clinical features of idiopathic gastroparesis vary with sex, body mass, symptom onset, delay in gastric emptying, and gastroparesis severity. Gastroenterology. 2011;140(1):101–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Soykan I, Sivri B, Sarosiek I, Kiernan B, McCallum RW. Demography, clinical characteristics, psychological and abuse profiles, treatment, and long-term follow-up of patients with gastroparesis. Dig Dis Sci. 1998;43(11):2398–404.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Choung RS, Locke GR 3rd, Schleck CD, Zinsmeister AR, Melton LJ 3rd, Talley NJ. Risk of gastroparesis in subjects with type 1 and 2 diabetes in the general population. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012;107(1):82–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Cipriani G, Gibbons SJ, Miller KE, Yang DS, Terhaar ML, Eisenman ST, et al. Change in populations of macrophages promotes development of delayed gastric emptying in mice. Gastroenterology. 2018;154(8):2122-2136.e12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lacy BE, Crowell MD, Mathis C, Bauer D, Heinberg LJ. Gastroparesis: quality of life and health care utilization. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2018;52(1):20–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Chen C. Science mapping: a systematic review of the literature. J Inf Sci. 2017;2:1–40.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Van Eck NJ, Waltman L. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics. 2010;84(2):523–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Aghaei Chadegani A, Salehi H, Yunus MM, Farhadi H, Fooladi M, Farhadi M, et al. A Comparison between two main academic literature collections: Web of Science and Scopus databases. Asian Soc Sci. 2013;9(5):18–26.

  17. Feng XW, Hadizadeh M, Zheng LH, Li WH. A bibliometric and visual analysis of exercise intervention publications for Alzheimer’s disease (1998–2021). J Clin Med. 2022;11(19):5903.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ma S, Guo X, Wang C, Yin Y, Xu G, Chen H, et al. Association of Barrett’s esophagus with Helicobacter pylori infection: a meta-analysis. Ther Adv Chronic Dis. 2022;13:20406223221117972.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Eusebi LH, Telese A, Cirota GG, Haidry R, Zagari RM, Bazzoli F, et al. Effect of gastro-esophageal reflux symptoms on the risk of Barrett’s esophagus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022;37(8):1507–16.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Memon AR, Vandelanotte C, Olds T, Duncan MJ, Vincent GE. Research combining physical activity and sleep: a bibliometric analysis. Percept Mot Skills. 2020;127(1):154–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Zyoud SH, Shakhshir M, Koni A, Abushanab AS, Shahwan M, Jairoun AA, et al. Mapping the global research landscape on insulin resistance: visualization and bibliometric analysis. World J Diabetes. 2022;13(9):786–98.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Chen JW, Guan Y, Zheng YL, Zhu K. Research trends and frontiers in exercise for movement disorders: a bibliometric analysis of global research from 2010 to 2021. Front Aging Neurosci. 2022;14: 977100.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Yu HY, Chang YC. A bibliometric analysis of platelet-rich fibrin in dentistry. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(19):12545.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Zhang N, Li C, Chen J, Liu X, Wang Z, Ni J. Research hotspots and frontiers about role of visual perception in stroke: a bibliometric study. Front Neurol. 2022;13: 958875.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Li J, Chen C. Citespace: scientific text mining and visualization. China: Capital University of Economics and Business Press; Beijing; 2016. p. 117–9.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Shi Y, Wei W, Li L, Wei Q, Jiang F, Xia G, et al. The global status of research in breast cancer liver metastasis: a bibliometric and visualized analysis. Bioengineered. 2021;12(2):12246–62.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kassander P. Asymptomatic gastric retention in diabetics (gastroparesis diabeticorum). Ann Intern Med. 1958;48(4):797–812.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Parkman HP, Van Natta ML, Abell TL, McCallum RW, Sarosiek I, Nguyen L, et al. Effect of nortriptyline on symptoms of idiopathic gastroparesis: the NORIG randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2013;310(24):2640–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Pasricha PJ, Yates KP, Sarosiek I, McCallum RW, Abell TL, Koch KL, et al. Aprepitant has mixed effects on nausea and reduces other symptoms in patients with gastroparesis and related disorders. Gastroenterology. 2018;154(1):65-76.e11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Hasler WL, Parkman HP, Wilson LA, Pasricha PJ, Koch KL, Abell TL, et al. Psychological dysfunction is associated with symptom severity but not disease etiology or degree of gastric retention in patients with gastroparesis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105(11):2357–67.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Parkman HP, Wilson LA, Farrugia G, Koch KL, Hasler WL, Nguyen LA, et al. Delayed gastric emptying associates with diabetic complications in diabetic patients with symptoms of gastroparesis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2019;114(11):1778–94.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Wu H, Cheng K, Guo Q, Yang W, Tong L, Wang Y, et al. Mapping knowledge structure and themes trends of osteoporosis in rheumatoid arthritis: a bibliometric analysis. Front Med (Lausanne). 2021;23(8): 787228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Yu X, Yu C, He W. Emerging trends and hot spots of NLRP3 inflammasome in neurological diseases: a bibliometric analysis. Front Pharmacol. 2022;13: 952211.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Janssens J, Peeters TL, Vantrappen G, Tack J, Urbain JL, De Roo M, et al. Improvement of gastric emptying in diabetic gastroparesis by erythromycin. Preliminary studies. N Engl J Med. 1990;322(15):1028–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Jung HK, Choung RS, Locke GR 3rd, Schleck CD, Zinsmeister AR, Szarka LA, et al. The incidence, prevalence, and outcomes of patients with gastroparesis in Olmsted County, Minnesota, from 1996 to 2006. Gastroenterology. 2009;136(4):1225–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Abell T, McCallum R, Hocking M, Koch K, Abrahamsson H, Leblanc I, et al. Gastric electrical stimulation for medically refractory gastroparesis. Gastroenterology. 2003;125(2):421–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. McCallum RW, Chen JD, Lin Z, Schirmer BD, Williams RD, Ross RA. Gastric pacing improves emptying and symptoms in patients with gastroparesis. Gastroenterology. 1998;114(3):456–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Gao M, Zhang H, Gao Z, Sun Y, Wang J, Wei F, et al. Global hotspots and prospects of perimenopausal depression: a bibliometric analysis via CiteSpace. Front Psychiatry. 2022;13: 968629.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Long D, Mao C, Zhang X, Liu Y, Shangguan X, Zou M, et al. Coronary heart disease and gut microbiota: a bibliometric and visual analysis from 2002 to 2022. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022;9: 949859.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Sachdeva P, Kantor S, Knight LC, Maurer AH, Fisher RS, Parkman HP. Use of a high caloric liquid meal as an alternative to a solid meal for gastric emptying scintigraphy. Dig Dis Sci. 2013;58(7):2001–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Pasricha PJ, Camilleri M, Hasler WL, Parkman HP. White paper AGA: gastroparesis: clinical and regulatory insights for clinical trials. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;15(8):1184–90.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Revicki DA, Rentz AM, Dubois D, Kahrilas P, Stanghellini V, Talley NJ, et al. Development and validation of a patient-assessed gastroparesis symptom severity measure: the gastroparesis cardinal symptom index. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2003;18(1):141–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Hasler WL. Gastroparesis: pathogenesis, diagnosis and management. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011;8(8):438–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Radetic M, Kamal A, Rouphael C, Kou L, Lyu R, Cline M. Severe gastroparesis is associated with an increased incidence of slow-transit constipation as measured by wireless motility capsule. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2021;33(5): e14045.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Griffith GH, Owen GM, Kirkman S, Shields R. Measurement of rate of gastric emptying using chromium-51. Lancet. 1966;1(7449):1244–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Camilleri M, Hasler WL, Parkman HP, Quigley EM, Soffer E. Measurement of gastrointestinal motility in the GI laboratory. Gastroenterology. 1998;115(3):747–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Donohoe KJ, Maurer AH, Ziessman HA, Urbain JL, Royal HD, Martin-Comin J, et al. Procedure guideline for adult solid-meal gastric-emptying study 3.0. J Nucl Med Technol. 2009;37(3):196–200.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Parkman HP. Scintigraphy for evaluation of patients for GI motility disorders—the referring physician’s perspective. Semin Nucl Med. 2012;42(2):76–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Abell TL, Camilleri M, Donohoe K, Hasler WL, Lin HC, Maurer AH, et al. Consensus recommendations for gastric emptying scintigraphy: a joint report of the American Neurogastroenterology and Motility Society and the Society of Nuclear Medicine. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103(3):753–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Wise JL, Vazquez-Roque MI, McKinney CJ, Zickella MA, Crowell MD, Lacy BE. Gastric emptying scans: poor adherence to national guidelines. Dig Dis Sci. 2021;66(9):2897–906.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Camilleri M, Shin A. Novel and validated approaches for gastric emptying scintigraphy in patients with suspected gastroparesis. Dig Dis Sci. 2013;58(7):1813–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Ziessman HA, Chander A, Clarke JO, Ramos A, Wahl RL. The added diagnostic value of liquid gastric emptying compared with solid emptying alone. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(5):726–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Bharucha AE, Kudva YC, Prichard DO. Diabetic gastroparesis. Endocr Rev. 2019;40(5):1318–52.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Mekaroonkamol P, Tiankanon K, Rerknimitr R. A new paradigm shift in gastroparesis management. Gut Liver. 2022;16(6):825–39.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Usai-Satta P, Bellini M, Morelli O, Geri F, Lai M, Bassotti G. Gastroparesis: new insights into an old disease. World J Gastroenterol. 2020;26(19):2333–48.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Szarka LA, Camilleri M, Vella A, Burton D, Baxter K, Simonson J, et al. A stable isotope breath test with a standard meal for abnormal gastric emptying of solids in the clinic and in research. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008;6(6):635-643.e1.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Ghoos YF, Maes BD, Geypens BJ, Mys G, Hiele MI, Rutgeerts PJ, et al. Measurement of gastric emptying rate of solids by means of a carbon-labeled octanoic acid breath test. Gastroenterology. 1993;104(6):1640–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Grover M, Farrugia G, Stanghellini V. Gastroparesis: a turning point in understanding and treatment. Gut. 2019;68(12):2238–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. George NS, Sankineni A, Parkman HP. Small intestinal bacterial overgrowth in gastroparesis. Dig Dis Sci. 2014;59(3):645–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Tran K, Brun R, Kuo B. Evaluation of regional and whole gut motility using the wireless motility capsule: relevance in clinical practice. Ther Adv Gastroenterol. 2012;5(4):249–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Sangnes DA, Søfteland E, Bekkelund M, Frey J, Biermann M, Gilja OH, et al. Wireless motility capsule compared with scintigraphy in the assessment of diabetic gastroparesis. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2020;32(4): e13771.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Lee AA, Rao S, Nguyen LA, Moshiree B, Sarosiek I, Schulman MI, et al. Validation of diagnostic and performance characteristics of the wireless motility capsule in patients with suspected gastroparesis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;17(9):1770-1779.e2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Ingrosso MR, Camilleri M, Tack J, Ianiro G, Black CJ, Ford AC. Efficacy and safety of drugs for gastroparesis: systematic review and network meta-analysis. Gastroenterology. 2023;164(4):642–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Camilleri M. Beyond metoclopramide for gastroparesis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022;20(1):19–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Hejazi RA, McCallum RW. Diabetic gastroparesis: a review of medical treatments. Prac Gastroenterol. 2009;24:10–20.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Parkman HP, Carlson MR, Gonyer D. Metoclopramide nasal spray is effective in symptoms of gastroparesis in diabetics compared to conventional oral tablet. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2014;26(4):521–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. McCallum RW, Ricci DA, Rakatansky H, Behar J, Rhodes JB, Salen G, et al. A multicenter placebo-controlled clinical trial of oral metoclopramide in diabetic gastroparesis. Diabetes Care. 1983;6(5):463–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Ricci DA, Saltzman MB, Meyer C, Callachan C, McCallum RW. Effect of metoclopramide in diabetic gastroparesis. J Clin Gastroenterol. 1985;7(1):25–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Parkman HP, Carlson MR, Gonyer D. Metoclopramide nasal spray reduces symptoms of gastroparesis in women, but not men, with diabetes: results of a phase 2B randomized study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;13(7):1256-1263.e1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Lai CH, Yeh YC, Chen YY. Metoclopramide as a prokinetic agent for diabetic gastroparesis: revisiting the risk of parkinsonism. Ther Adv Drug Saf. 2019;10:2042098619854007.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. American Diabetes Association. 7. Approaches to glycemic treatment. Diabetes Care. 2016;39(Suppl 1):S52–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Heckert J, Parkman HP. Therapeutic response to domperidone in gastroparesis: a prospective study using the GCSI-daily diary. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2018;30(1):e13246. https://doi.org/10.1111/nmo.13246.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Mansi C, Savarino V, Vigneri S, Perilli D, Melga P, Sciabà L, et al. Gastrokinetic effects of levosulpiride in dyspeptic patients with diabetic gastroparesis. Am J Gastroenterol. 1995;90(11):1989–93.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Manabe N, Wong BS, Camilleri M. New-generation 5-HT4 receptor agonists: potential for treatment of gastrointestinal motility disorders. Expert Opin Investig Drugs. 2010;19(6):765–75.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. De Maeyer JH, Lefebvre RA, Schuurkes JA. 5-HT4 receptor agonists: similar but not the same. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2008;20(2):99–112.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Cutts TF, Luo J, Starkebaum W, Rashed H, Abell TL. Is gastric electrical stimulation superior to standard pharmacologic therapy in improving GI symptoms, healthcare resources, and long-term health care benefits? Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2005;17(1):35–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Andrews CN, Woo M, Buresi M, Curley M, Gupta M, Tack J, et al. Prucalopride in diabetic and connective tissue disease-related gastroparesis: randomized placebo-controlled crossover pilot trial. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2021;33(1): e13958.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Carbone F, Van den Houte K, Clevers E, Andrews CN, Papathanasopoulos A, Holvoet L, et al. Prucalopride in gastroparesis: a randomized placebo-controlled crossover study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2019;114(8):1265–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Fahler J, Wall GC, Leman BI. Gastroparesis-associated refractory nausea treated with aprepitant. Ann Pharmacother. 2012;46(12): e38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Chong K, Dhatariya K. A case of severe, refractory diabetic gastroparesis managed by prolonged use of aprepitant. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2009;5(5):285–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Pasricha PJ, Yates KP, Nguyen L, Clarke J, Abell TL, Farrugia G, et al. Outcomes and factors associated with reduced symptoms in patients with gastroparesis. Gastroenterology. 2015;149(7):1762-1774.e4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Bortolotti M. Gastric electrical stimulation for gastroparesis: a goal greatly pursued, but not yet attained. World J Gastroenterol. 2011;17(3):273–82.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Saleem S, Hussain A, Alsamman MA, Inayat F, Kaler J, Tansel A, et al. Characteristics of patients who underwent gastric electrical stimulation vs surgical pyloric interventions for refractory gastroparesis. Saudi J Gastroenterol. 2021;27(5):309–15.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Bilgutay AM, Wingrove R, Griffen WO, Bonnabeau RC Jr, Liliehei CW. Gastro-intestinal pacing: a new concept in the treatment of ileus. Ann Surg. 1963;158(3):338–48.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Sarna SK. Gastrointestinal electrical activity: terminology. Gastroenterology. 1975;68(6):1631–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Sarna SK, Bowes KL, Daniel EE. Gastric pacemakers. Gastroenterology. 1976;70(2):226–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Soffer EE. Gastric electrical stimulation for gastroparesis. J Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2012;18(2):131–7.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Ward MP, Gupta A, Wo JM, Rajwa B, Furness JB, Powley TL, et al. An emerging method to noninvasively measure and identify vagal response markers to enable bioelectronic control of gastroparesis symptoms with gastric electrical stimulation. J Neurosci Methods. 2020;336: 108631.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Forster J, Sarosiek I, Delcore R, Lin Z, Raju GS, McCallum RW. Gastric pacing is a new surgical treatment for gastroparesis. Am J Surg. 2001;182(6):676–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Saleem S, Aziz M, Khan AA, Williams MJ, Mathur P, Tansel A, et al. Gastric electrical stimulation for the treatment of gastroparesis or gastroparesis-like symptoms: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Neuromodulation. 2022;S1094–7159(22):01338–41.

    Google Scholar 

  91. McCallum RW, Lin Z, Forster J, Roeser K, Hou Q, Sarosiek I. Gastric electrical stimulation improves outcomes of patients with gastroparesis for up to 10 years. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011;9(4):314-319.e1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. McCallum RW, Dusing RW, Sarosiek I, Cocjin J, Forster J, Lin Z. Mechanisms of symptomatic improvement after gastric electrical stimulation in gastroparetic patients. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2010;22(2):161–7, e50-1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Jayanthi NV, Dexter SP, Sarela AI; Leeds Gastroparesis Multi-Disciplinary Team. Gastric electrical stimulation for treatment of clinically severe gastroparesis. J Minim Access Surg. 2013;9(4):163–7.

  94. Inoue H, Minami H, Kobayashi Y, Sato Y, Kaga M, Suzuki M, et al. Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for esophageal achalasia. Endoscopy. 2010;42(4):265–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Khashab MA, Stein E, Clarke JO, Saxena P, Kumbhari V, Chander Roland B, et al. Gastric peroral endoscopic myotomy for refractory gastroparesis: first human endoscopic pyloromyotomy (with video). Gastrointest Endosc. 2013;78(5):764–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Malik Z, Sankineni A, Parkman HP. Assessing pyloric sphincter pathophysiology using EndoFLIP in patients with gastroparesis. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2015;27(4):524–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Mohan BP, Chandan S, Jha LK, Khan SR, Kotagiri R, Kassab LL, et al. Clinical efficacy of gastric per-oral endoscopic myotomy (G-POEM) in the treatment of refractory gastroparesis and predictors of outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis using surgical pyloroplasty as a comparator group. Surg Endosc. 2020;34(8):3352–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Yan J, Tan Y, Zhou B, Zhang S, Wang X, Liu D. Gastric per-oral endoscopic myotomy (G-POEM) is a promising treatment for refractory gastroparesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Rev Esp Enferm Dig. 2020;112(3):219–28.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Zhang H, Zhang J, Jiang A, Ni H. Gastric peroral endoscopic myotomy for gastroparesis: a systematic review of efficacy and safety. Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;42(7):413–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Aziz M, Gangwani MK, Haghbin H, Dahiya DS, Sohail AH, Kamal F, et al. Gastric peroral endoscopic myotomy versus surgical pyloromyotomy/pyloroplasty for refractory gastroparesis: systematic review and meta-analysis. Endosc Int Open. 2023;11(4):E322–9.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Montecucco C, Molgó J. Botulinal neurotoxins: revival of an old killer. Curr Opin Pharmacol. 2005;5(3):274–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Watkins CC, Sawa A, Jaffrey S, Blackshaw S, Barrow RK, Snyder SH, et al. Insulin restores neuronal nitric oxide synthase expression and unction that is lost in diabetic gastropathy. J Clin Invest. 2000;106:803.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Reddymasu SC, Singh S, Sankula R, Lavenbarg TA, Olyaee M, McCallum RW. Endoscopic pyloric injection of botulinum toxin-a for the treatment of postvagotomy gastroparesis. Am J Med Sci. 2009;337(3):161–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Mearin F, Camilleri M, Malagelada JR. Pyloric dysfunction in diabetics with recurrent nausea and vomiting. Gastroenterology. 1986;90(6):1919–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Ezzeddine D, Jit R, Katz N, Gopalswamy N, Bhutani MS. Pyloric injection of botulinum toxin for treatment of diabetic gastroparesis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;55(7):920–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Coleski R, Anderson MA, Hasler WL. Factors associated with symptom response to pyloric injection of botulinum toxin in a large series of gastroparesis patients. Dig Dis Sci. 2009;54(12):2634–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Bai Y, Xu MJ, Yang X, Xu C, Gao J, Zou DW, et al. A systematic review on intrapyloric botulinum toxin injection for gastroparesis. Digestion. 2010;81(1):27–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Sperber AD, Bangdiwala SI, Drossman DA, Ghoshal UC, Simren M, Tack J, et al. Worldwide prevalence and burden of functional gastrointestinal disorders, results of Rome Foundation Global Study. Gastroenterology. 2021;160(1):99-114.e3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors appreciate the publications included in this study.

Funding

Funding was provided by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Grant/Award Number: 82174352. Capital Health Research and Development of Special Fund, Grant/Award Number: 2020-2-4152.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Meng Li and Ning Gao contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gastroenterology, Guang’anmen Hospital, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, No. 5 Beixiange St., Xicheng District, Beijing, 100053, China

    Meng Li, Shaoli Wang & Zhen Liu

  2. Department of Acupuncture and Moxibustion, Guang’anmen Hospital, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, No. 5 Beixiange St., Xicheng District, Beijing, 100053, China

    Ning Gao & Yufeng Guo

Authors
  1. Meng Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ning Gao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shaoli Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yufeng Guo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Zhen Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

YFG and ZL contributed to the conception and design of the study. SLW is responsible for literature searching and data collection. ML is responsible for statistical analysis and charting. This manuscript was drafted by ML and revised by NG. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Yufeng Guo or Zhen Liu.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The data for this study were downloaded directly from the database and not applicable for ethical approval.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Li, M., Gao, N., Wang, S. et al. A global bibliometric and visualized analysis of the status and trends of gastroparesis research. Eur J Med Res 28, 543 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40001-023-01537-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40001-023-01537-1

Keywords

European Journal of Medical Research

ISSN: 2047-783X

Contact us