Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15818506›Full record

ReviewDer Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen2005

[Correct diagnosis for indication in gastroesophageal reflux disease].

A H Hölscher, E Bollschweiler, Ch Gutschow, P Malfertheiner

Abstract readComparative StudyEnglish AbstractReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

A H HölscherKlinik und Poliklinik für Visceral- und Gefässchirurgie der Universität zu Köln. Arnulf.Hoelscher@medizin.uni-koeln.de
E Bollschweiler
Ch Gutschow
P Malfertheiner

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For diagnosis and quantitation of gastroesophageal reflux disease, a number of different examinations are available. The simplest are the patient's history and complaints as well as the proton pump inhibitor test; both methods have a positive predictive value of 65% to 70%. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy is the gold standard for differentiation between erosive and nonerosive reflux disease. Biopsy does not enhance the significance of endoscopy except for proof of Barrett's epithelium or malignant degeneration. Twenty-four-hour pH monitoring has the highest sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Barium swallow provides only additional information concerning hiatal hernia or stenosis. Manometry can clarify lower esophageal sphincter insufficiency or motility disorders of the tubular esophagus. However, the available studies show that manometry has no influence on postoperative outcome after fundoplication. The indication for medical therapy can primarily be based only on the history and complaints of the patient. As surgical therapy affords a high degree of diagnostic accuracy, at least endoscopy and 24-h pH monitoring are necessary for indication.

Indexed as

Diagnosis, DifferentialDyspepsiaEsophagitis, PepticEvidence-Based MedicineFundoplicationGastroesophageal RefluxHumansPredictive Value of TestsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

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.