ArticleNeurogastroenterology and motility2015
Exaggerated smooth muscle contraction segments on esophageal high-resolution manometry: prevalence and clinical relevance.
Article in Neurogastroenterology and motility, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of motor diagnoses by Chicago Classification versions 2.0 and 3.0 on esophageal high-resolution manometry.Neurogastroenterology and motility · 2017Observational
- Chicago Classification of Esophageal Motility Disorders: Applications and Limits in Adults and Pediatric Patients with Esophageal Symptoms.Current gastroenterology reports · 2016Review
- Clinical Significance of Esophageal Hypertensive Peristaltic Contractions on High-resolution Manometry(Neurogastroenterol Motil 2015;27:229-236).Journal of neurogastroenterology and motility · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTwo smooth muscle contraction segments (S2, S3) on esophageal high-resolution manometry (HRM) demonstrate varying contraction vigor in symptomatic patients. Significance of isolated exaggerated smooth muscle contraction remains unclear.
methodsHigh-resolution manometry studies were reviewed in 272 consecutive patients (56.4 ± 0.8 years, 62% F) and compared to 21 healthy controls (27.6 ± 0.6 years, 52% F), using HRM tools (distal contractile integral, DCI; distal latency, DL; integrated relaxation pressure, IRP), Chicago Classification (CC) and multiple rapid swallows (MRS). Segments were designated merged when the trough between S2 and S3 was ≥150 mmHg, and exaggerated S3 when peak S3 amplitude was ≥150 mmHg without merging with S2. Presenting symptoms and global symptom severity (on 100 mm visual analog scale) were recorded. Prevalence of merged and exaggerated segments was determined, and characteristics compared to symptomatic patients with normal HRM, and to healthy controls. KEY
resultsMerged segments were identified in 5.6%, and exaggerated S3 in another 12.5%, but only 17-50% had a CC diagnosis; one healthy control had merged segments. DCI with wet swallows was similar in cohorts with merged and exaggerated segments (p = 0.7), significantly higher than symptomatic patients with normal HRM and healthy controls (p ≤ 0.003 for each comparison). Incomplete inhibition and prominent DCI augmentation on MRS (p ≤ 0.01), and presenting symptoms (chest pain and dysphagia, p = 0.04) characterized exaggerated segments, but not demographics or symptom burden. CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: Merged esophageal smooth muscle segments and exaggerated S3 may represent hypermotility phenomena from abnormal inhibition and/or excitation, and are not uniformly identified by the CC algorithm.
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.