Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25103415›Full record

ReviewDrugs2014

Functional esophageal disorders: pharmacological options.

Gehanjali Amarasinghe, Daniel Sifrim

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Drugs, 2014. 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
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Gehanjali AmarasingheBarts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Daniel Sifrim
Queen Mary University of London · GBWinrock International (United States) · US

Funding

Medical Research Council G0802313
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Functional esophageal disorders are a group of disorders that cause esophageal symptoms, although with negative results on investigation with standard esophageal tests. Therefore, structural disorders, motility disorders with a histopathological basis and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) are excluded. They are frequently encountered by clinicians, and so a systematic and evidence-based approach to investigation, diagnosis and treatment are crucial. There are four functional esophageal disorders defined by the ROME III consensus, namely functional heartburn, functional chest pain, functional dysphagia and globus. Since the advent of ROME, the specification of diagnostic criteria for functional esophageal disorders has allowed more comparable studies and clinical trials. Despite this, the evidence base for many therapies in use at present is not as robust as would be desired. In this paper, we discuss the four categories of functional esophageal disorders. We then propose diagnostic algorithms based on current evidence. Finally, we discuss current therapies for each of the four functional esophageal disorders based on current evidence.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsEsophageal DiseasesHumans

Identifiers

PMID25103415
OpenAlexW1965356103

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.