ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract2015
More art than science: impedance analysis prone to interpretation error.
Article in Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, 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.
- Role of the Mean Nocturnal Baseline Impedance in Identifying Evidence Against Pathologic Reflux in Patients With Refractory Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Symptoms as Classified by the Lyon Consensus.Journal of neurogastroenterology and motility · 2022Article
- Non-acid Reflux: When It Matters and Approach to Management.Current gastroenterology reports · 2020Review
- Comparison of multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring and reflux scintigraphy in pediatric patients with suspected gastroesophageal reflux.World journal of gastroenterology · 2016Article
- Gastroesophageal reflux disease: A review of surgical decision making.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImpedance monitoring for reflux evaluation does not have standardized scoring, which can confound interpretation between observers. We investigated the variability of impedance testing interpretation between physicians and computer software.
methodsRaw impedance data from 38 patients that underwent impedance monitoring at a tertiary referral center between 2008 and 2013 were collected. Two physicians and computer software each analyzed the same impedance dataset for reflux activity and symptom-reflux correlation.
resultsNormalized reflux activity interpretations did not differ between physicians and the computer for acid or non-acid reflux. However, for weakly acidic reflux, there was significant difference between physicians (p < 0.01) and between physician and computer (p < 0.01). In analyzing all reflux, significant variability existed between physicians (p < 0.01) but not between physician and computer. Variability in interpretation altered diagnosis in 24 % of patients when comparing between physicians, 18 % of patients when comparing both physicians to the computer, and an additional 24 % of cases when comparing a single physician to the computer. Symptom-reflux correlation differed in 7 % of physician-physician comparisons versus 8 % of computer-physician comparisons.
conclusionImpedance testing analysis is subject to marked variability between physicians and computer software, making impedance prone to interpretation error that can lead to differences in diagnosis and management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25876531What 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.