ArticleISRN gastroenterology2012
Critical analysis of esophageal multichannel intraluminal impedance monitoring 20 years later.
Article in ISRN gastroenterology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ratio between proximal/distal gastroesophageal reflux does not discriminate abnormal proximal reflux.World journal of surgery · 2014Trial
- Insights into the Paradox of the Weak Association Between Sleeve Gastrectomy and Barrett's Esophagus.Obesity surgery · 2023Review
- Advances in the Diagnosis of GERD Using the Esophageal pH Monitoring, Gastro-Esophageal Impedance-pH Monitoring, And Pitfalls.Open access Macedonian journal of medical sciences · 2018Review
- Dysphagia: Thinking outside the box.World journal of gastroenterology · 2017Review
- Pathophysiology of Gastroesophageal Reflux in Patients with Chronic Pulmonary Obstructive Disease Is Linked to an Increased Transdiaphragmatic Pressure Gradient and not to a Defective Esophagogastric Barrier.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Multichannel intraluminal impedance (MII) for the evaluation of esophageal diseases was created in 1991 trying to solve previous limitations of esophageal function test. MII-pH is able to determine the physical characteristics of the refluxate (liquid, gas, or mixed) and nonacidic GER. MII-manometry can determine the presence of bolus and its relation with peristalsis. This paper makes a critical analysis of the clinical applications of MII 20 years after its creation. Literature review shows that MII made great contributions for the understanding of esophageal physiology; however, direct clinical applications are few. MII-pH was expected to identify patients with normal acid reflux and abnormal nonacidic reflux. These patients are rarely found off therapy, that is, nonacidic reflux parallels acid reflux. Furthermore, the significance of isolated nonacidic reflux is unclear. Contradictory MII-manometry and conventional manometry findings lack better understanding and clinical implication as well as the real significance of bolus transit.
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.