Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22428660›Full record

ArticleAlimentary pharmacology & therapeutics2012

Assessment of concordance of symptom reflux association tests in ambulatory pH monitoring.

V M Kushnir, A Sathyamurthy, J Drapekin, S Gaddam, G S Sayuk, C P Gyawali

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Observational
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Parameters on esophageal pH-impedance monitoring that predict outcomes of patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2015
    Article
  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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

V M KushnirDivision of Gastroenterology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, USA.
A Sathyamurthy
J Drapekin
S Gaddam
G S Sayuk
C P Gyawali
Washington University in St. Louis · US

Funding

Washington University Institute of Clinical and Translational SciencesUL1TR000448 · NCATS · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI EVANOFF, BRADLEY A · 2012 to 2016
$41.4M
CLINICAL/LABORATORY TRAINING ACADEMIC GASTROENTEROLOGYT32DK007130 · NIDDK · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI MATTHEW AARON CIORBA · 1986 to 2026
$8.3M
Influence of Somatization on Central Pain Responses in Irritable Bowel SyndromeK23DK084113 · NIDDK · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI SAYUK, GREGORY S · 2010 to 2014
$827k
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000448NIDDK NIH HHS K23 DK084113NIDDK NIH HHS T32 DK007130
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBoth simple proportions and statistical tests are utilised for symptom-reflux association. We systematically compared three such tests in a clinical setting.

aimTo compare the three commonly used symptom reflux association tests in a large cohort of patients undergoing ambulatory pH monitoring for the evaluation of oesophageal symptoms.

methodsAmbulatory pH data from 772 symptomatic subjects (49.1 ± 0.5 years; 479 F) tested off therapy were assessed for acid exposure time (AET, elevated when pH <4 for ≥4%), symptom index (SI, ≥50% when positive), and symptom association probability (SAP) and Ghillebert probability estimate (GPE, P < 0.05 when positive). Test concordance and discordance were individually assessed; discordance between statistical tests was minor if one had P < 0.1 while the other was positive. Logistic regression determined independent predictors of test discordance.

resultsThe SAP, GPE and SI were positive in 42.7%, 39.3% and 33.9% respectively. GPE performed extremely well compared to SAP (sensitivity 0.95, specificity 0.91), with major discordance in only 2.8%. Positive concordance was significantly higher when AET was abnormal. GPE underestimated symptom association compared to SAP, whereas SAP was subject to symptom over-counting in 33.3% of discordant cases. GPE-SAP discordance was associated with higher AET (7.5% vs. 5.1%) and more symptoms (19.3 vs. 10.7, P > 0.001 for each comparison with concordant tests); both remained significant on logistic regression analysis (P ≤ 0.003). SI was discordant with SAP when symptoms were extremely frequent (median 19, IQR 10-32) or limited (median 1, IQR 1-2), and concordant when median 6 symptoms (IQR 3-12) were recorded.

conclusionsThe GPE can be used interchangeably with SAP in symptom reflux association. SI has uncertain value with very high and very low symptom counts.

Indexed as

Esophageal pH MonitoringFemaleGastroesophageal RefluxHumansHydrogen-Ion ConcentrationMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID22428660
PMCPMC3959626
OpenAlexW2017483302

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.