ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2005
Esophageal visceral sensitivity to bile salts in patients with functional heartburn and in healthy control subjects.
Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.
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
24 citing papers in PubMed, 76 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- A Role for High Mobility Group Box 1 (HMGB1) Release in the Pathogenesis of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease.Neurogastroenterology and motility · 2025Article
- Advances in Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Management: Exploring the Role of Potassium-Competitive Acid Blockers and Novel Therapies.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Management of Patients With Refractory Reflux-Like Symptoms Despite Proton Pump Inhibitor Therapy: Evidence-Based Consensus Statements.Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics · 2025Article
- Genetic evidence causally linking gastroesophageal reflux disease to cholecystitis: a two-sample mendelian randomization study.BMC gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Pathophysiology of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: implications for diagnosis and management.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2024Review
- Potential therapeutic benefit of ursodeoxycholic acid in the management of non hepato-biliary upper gastrointestinal disorders.Saudi medical journal · 2023Article
- NF-κB: A novel therapeutic pathway for gastroesophageal reflux disease?World journal of clinical cases · 2022Review
- The relationship between esophageal acidity and symptom frequency in symptomatic nonerosive gastroesophageal reflux disease.Physiological reports · 2022Article
- Pathophysiology and treatment options for gastroesophageal reflux disease: looking beyond acid.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2021Review
- Refractory Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: A Management Update.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Review
- Elobixibat for the treatment of constipation.Expert review of gastroenterology & hepatology · 2018Article
- Proton pump inhibitor-refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease: challenges and solutions.Clinical and experimental gastroenterology · 2018Review
- Update on Functional Heartburn.Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2017Article
- Effects of rikkunshito on quality of life in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease refractory to proton pump inhibitor therapy.Journal of clinical biochemistry and nutrition · 2017Article
- Cough reflex sensitization from esophagus and nose.Pulmonary pharmacology & therapeutics · 2015Review
- Refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease.Gastroenterology report · 2015Review
- Gastroesophageal reflux symptoms not responding to proton pump inhibitor: GERD, NERD, NARD, esophageal hypersensitivity or dyspepsia?Canadian journal of gastroenterology & hepatology · 2014Article
- Role of non-acid reflux in patients with non-erosive reflux disease.Annals of gastroenterology · 2013Review
- The role of weakly acidic reflux in proton pump inhibitor failure, has dust settled?Journal of neurogastroenterology and motility · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patients with nonerosive gastroesophageal reflux disease often have relatively low esophageal acid exposure and respond suboptimally to gastric acid suppression. In these patients, other constituents of gastric contents may induce esophageal symptoms. We have demonstrated that gastric contents can cause heartburn when the gastric pH >4. (Aliment Pharm Ther 14:129-134, 2000). The aim of this study was to determine relative sensitivities to chenodeoxycholic and ursodeoxycholic acids, and 0.1 N HCl, administered as provocative perfusion tests. Patients with functional heartburn and healthy control subjects were evaluated. Patients underwent a modified Bernstein acid infusion test and esophageal Barostat balloon distention. Time and volume to pain were recorded. Barostat balloon distention was performed using our standard protocol. Stepwise distentions were performed and pain was recorded. Sensitivity to chenodeoxycholic acid (Cheno) and Ursodeoxycholic acid (Urso) were assessed similarly to the Bernstein test using 2 mM concentrations of each, followed immediately by 5 mM if no pain was reported with 2 mM. Volume of bile acid infusion and length of time until pain was induced were assessed and compared to the same endpoints for acid sensitivity. "Total" time and "total" volume to induce pain were calculated for Cheno and Urso. Least-squares means were generated and two-tailed t-tests and regression analyses were performed (P < 0.05 level of significance). Ten functional heartburn patients and six healthy controls were evaluated (3 M, 13 F; age range, 19 to 56 years). Since five of six controls had pain with acid infusion (hypersensitive), all subjects were analyzed as one group. Only three subjects (all controls) had no pain with infusion of 2 mM Cheno and received the follow-up infusion of 5 mM. These same three subjects tolerated the maximum infusion (150 ml and 15 min) of 5 mM Cheno. Nine subjects did not have pain with 2 mM Urso and received the follow-up infusion of 5 mM Urso (five functional heartburn, four controls). Significantly more subjects tolerated the maximum bile acid infusion of 2 mM Urso vs 2 mM Cheno (nine vs three; P < 0.05, Chi-square test). The pain threshold (volume and time) for Urso was significantly higher than that for Cheno and acid (P < 0.05), and the pain threshold for Cheno was significantly higher than that for acid (P < 0.05). Conclusions are as follows: (1) Bile acids differ in their ability to induce pain. (2) Changing bile acid composition by treatment with Urso may change symptom presentation and symptom severity in patients with bile acid-induced esophageal pain.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.