ArticleSurgical endoscopy2015
24-h multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring may be an inadequate test for detecting gastroesophageal reflux in patients with mixed typical and atypical symptoms.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Laryngopharyngeal Symptoms and Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Disease: Presentation, Health Care Burden, and Risk Stratification.Neurogastroenterology and motility · 2026Review
- Comparison of the multichannel intraluminal impedance pH and conventional pH for measuring esophageal acid exposure: a propensity score-matched analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2017Article
- Comparison of laparoscopic Nissen and Toupet fundoplication using a propensity score matching analysis.Surgery today · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe detection of gastroesophageal reflux (GERD) via pH testing is the key component of the evaluation of patients considered for antireflux surgery. Two common pH testing systems exist, a multichannel, intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring (MII-pH) catheter, and wireless (Bravo(®)) capsule; however, discrepancies between the two systems exist. In patients with atypical symptoms, MII-pH catheter is often used preferentially. We aimed to elucidate the magnitude of this discrepancy and to assess the diagnostic value of MII-pH and the Bravo wireless capsule in a population of patients with mixed respiratory and typical symptoms.
methodsThe study population consisted of 66 patients tested with MII-pH and Bravo pH testing within 90 days between July 2009 and 2013. All patients presented with laryngo-pharyngo-respiratory (LPR) symptoms. Patient demographics, symptomatology, manometric and endoscopic findings, and pH monitoring parameters were analyzed. Patients were divided into four comparison groups: both pH tests positive, MII-pH negative/Bravo positive, MII-pH positive/Bravo negative, and both pH tests negative.
resultsNearly half of the patients (44%) had discordant pH test results. Of these, 90% (26/29) had a negative MII-pH but positive Bravo study. In this group, the difference in the DeMeester score was large, a median of 29.3. These patients had a higher BMI (28.5 vs. 26.1, p = 0.0357), were more likely to complain of heartburn (50 vs. 23%, p = 0.0110), to have a hiatal hernia, (85 vs. 53%, p = 0.0075) and a structurally defective lower esophageal sphincter (LES, 85 vs. 58%, p = 0.0208).
conclusionsIn patients with LPR symptoms, we found a high prevalence of discordant esophageal pH results, most commonly a negative MII-pH catheter and positive Bravo. As these patients exhibited characteristics consistent with GERD (heartburn, defective LES, hiatal hernia), the Bravo results are likely true. A 24-h MII-pH catheter study may be inadequate to diagnose GERD in this patient population.
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.