Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25608535›Full record

ReviewAnnals of gastroenterology

Impact of high-resolution manometry on achalasia diagnosis and treatment.

Michaela Müller

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of gastroenterology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. How to Perform and Interpret a High-resolution Anorectal Manometry Test.Journal of neurogastroenterology and motility · 2016
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Author's reply.Annals of gastroenterology
    Article
  11. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Michaela MüllerDepartment of Gastroenterology, German Diagnostic Clinic Helios Clinic Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden, Germany.
Deutsche Klinik für Diagnostik · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Achalasia is a primary neurodegenerative disorder of the esophagus characterized by loss of function of the lower esophageal sphincter (LES) and of esophageal peristalsis, which causes symptoms such as dysphagia, regurgitation, weight loss, and chest pain. Esophageal manometry is the gold standard for the diagnosis of achalasia. The typical manometric features are incomplete relaxation of a frequently hypertensive LES and lack of peristalsis in the tubular esophagus. High-resolution manometry using catheters with 36 solid-state sensors spaced 1cm apart has more and more replaced water-perfused and pull-through manometry. However, the main innovation of this method is the conversion of pressure data into a topographical plot. The data can be modified using interpolation to generate high-resolution esophageal pressure topography (HREPT). HREPT is more sensitive, provides more detailed information, and is easier to perform than conventional manometry. Introduction of HREPT had an impact especially on the diagnosis and management of achalasia. A clinically relevant impact was achieved by the identification of 3 clinical subtypes which seem to predict treatment outcomes. This review analyzes the progress made in the diagnosis and management of achalasia since the recent introduction of HREPT.

Indexed as

Chicago classificationesophageal pressure topographyhigh-resolution manometryKeywords Achalasia

Identifiers

PMID25608535
PMCPMC4290001
OpenAlexW2144817018

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.