ReviewNature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology2013
Advances in motility testing--current and novel approaches.
Review in Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology, 2013. 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, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- MEMS-based large-field-of-view optical coherence tomography endoscopy for gastric ulcer imaging in mice.Biomedical optics express · 2026Article
- The Key Ingredient Acacetin in Weishu Decoction Alleviates Gastrointestinal Motility Disorder Based on Network Pharmacology Analysis.Mediators of inflammation · 2021Article
- Assessment of fasted and fed gastrointestinal contraction frequencies in healthy subjects using continuously tagged MRI.Neurogastroenterology and motility · 2020Article
- XIVth Little Brain Big Brain: next-generation enteric neuroscience.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2017Article
- Transcutaneous intraluminal impedance measurement for minimally invasive monitoring of gastric motility: validation in acute canine models.Gastroenterology research and practice · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Disorders of gastrointestinal motility are frequently seen in clinical practice. Apart from motility disorders, factors leading to lowered visceroperception thresholds are recognized as commonly involved in the pathogenesis of functional gastrointestinal disorders. The wide array of gastrointestinal motility and viscerosensitivity tests available is in contrast with the relatively limited number of tests used universally in clinical practice. The main reason for this discrepancy is that the outcome of a test only becomes truly important when it carries clinical consequences. The main goal of this Review is to assess the place of the presently available gastrointestinal motility and sensitivity tests in the clinical armamentarium of the gastroenterologist.
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.