Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24917969›Full record

ArticleUnited European gastroenterology journal2013

Oesophageal pressure-flow metrics in relation to bolus volume, bolus consistency, and bolus perception.

Taher I Omari, Lucas Wauters, Nathalie Rommel, Stamatiki Kritas, Jenifer C Myers

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in United European gastroenterology journal, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Oesophageal dysphagia: manifestations and diagnosis.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2015
    Review
  14. Review
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

5 authors.

Taher I OmariWomen's and Children's Health Network, Adelaide, Australia ; University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
Lucas WautersUniversity of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Nathalie RommelUniversity of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Stamatiki KritasWomen's and Children's Health Network, Adelaide, Australia.
Jenifer C MyersRoyal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe utility of combined oesophageal pressure-impedance recording has been enhanced by automation of data analysis.

objectiveTo understand how oesophageal function as measured by automated impedance manometry (AIM) pressure-flow analysis varies with bolus characteristics and subjective perception of bolus passage.

methodsOesophageal pressure-impedance recordings of 5 and 10 ml liquid or viscous swallows and 2 and 4 cm solid swallows from 20 healthy control subjects (five male; 25-73 years) were analysed. Metrics indicative of bolus pressurization (intrabolus pressure and intrabolus pressure slope) were derived. Bolus flow resistance, the relationship between bolus pressurization and flow timing, was assessed using a pressure-flow index. Bolus retention was assessed using the ratio of nadir impedance to peak pressure impedance (impedance ratio). Subjective perception of bolus passage was assessed swallow by swallow.

resultsViscosity increased the bolus flow resistance and reduced bolus clearance. Responses to boluses of larger volume and more viscous consistency revealed a positive correlation between bolus pressurization and oesophageal peak pressure. Flow resistance was higher in subjects who perceived bolus hold up of solids.

conclusionsBolus volume and bolus type alter oesophageal function and impact AIM analysis metrics descriptive of oesophageal function. Perception of bolus transit was associated with heightened bolus pressurization relative to bolus flow.

Indexed as

Diagnosisdysphagiaimpedanceoesophageal motilitypressure

Identifiers

PMID24917969
PMCPMC4040787

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.