Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15712642›Full record

ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2005

Esophageal visceral sensitivity to bile salts in patients with functional heartburn and in healthy control subjects.

Ali Siddiqui, Sheila Rodriguez-Stanley, Sattar Zubaidi, Philip B Miner

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 76 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Elobixibat for the treatment of constipation.Expert review of gastroenterology & hepatology · 2018
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Update on Functional Heartburn.Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2017
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Cough reflex sensitization from esophagus and nose.Pulmonary pharmacology & therapeutics · 2015
    Review
  17. Refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease.Gastroenterology report · 2015
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ali SiddiquiOklahoma Foundation for Digestive Research, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73104, USA.
Sheila Rodriguez-Stanley
Sattar Zubaidi
Philip B Miner
Oklahoma Foundation for Digestive Research · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AdultCase-Control StudiesCatheterizationChenodeoxycholic AcidEsophagusFemaleGastrointestinal AgentsHeartburnHumansHydrochloric AcidMaleMiddle AgedPain ThresholdUrsodeoxycholic AcidChenodeoxycholic AcidGastrointestinal AgentsHydrochloric AcidUrsodeoxycholic Acid

Identifiers

PMID15712642
OpenAlexW2092110707

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.