ArticleWorld journal of gastroenterology2015
Pathophysiology of functional heartburn based on Rome III criteria in Japanese patients.
Article in World journal of gastroenterology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and Safety of Vonoprazan in Patients With Nonerosive Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Phase 3 Study.Clinical and translational gastroenterology · 2019Trial
- Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: Pathophysiology and New Treatment Trends.Internal medicine (Tokyo, Japan) · 2024Article
- Esophageal Reflux Hypersensitivity: A Comprehensive Review.Gut and liver · 2023Review
- Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for gastroesophageal reflux disease 2021.Journal of gastroenterology · 2022Review
- Reflux Hypersensitivity: How to Approach Diagnosis and Management.Current gastroenterology reports · 2020Review
- Efficacy of Vonoprazan for Gastroesophageal Reflux Symptoms in Patients with Proton Pump Inhibitor-resistant Non-erosive Reflux Disease.Internal medicine (Tokyo, Japan) · 2018Article
- Reflux Hypersensitivity: A New Functional Esophageal Disorder.Journal of neurogastroenterology and motility · 2017Review
- Can Acute Stress Cause Esophageal Hypersensitivity in Healthy Individuals?Journal of neurogastroenterology and motility · 2017Article
- The Application of the Rome IV Criteria to Functional Esophagogastroduodenal Disorders in Asia.Journal of neurogastroenterology and motility · 2017Review
- Comparison of oesophageal function tests between Chinese non-erosive reflux disease and reflux hypersensitivity patients.BMC gastroenterology · 2017Article
- Comparison of Esophageal Function Tests in Chinese Patients with Functional Heartburn and Reflux Hypersensitivity.Gastroenterology research and practice · 2017Article
- Diagnosis and Management of Functional Heartburn.The American journal of gastroenterology · 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
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo investigate the pathophysiology of functional heartburn (FH) in Japanese patients.
methodsA total of 111 patients with proton pump inhibitor (PPI)-refractory non-erosive gastroesophageal reflux disease underwent intraesophageal pressure testing and 24-h multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH (24MII-pH) testing. The patients also completed several questionnaires while they were receiving the PPI treatment, including the questionnaire for the diagnosis of reflux disease (QUEST), the frequency scale for the symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease (FSSG), the gastrointestinal symptoms rating scale (GSRS), SF-36, and the Cornell Medical Index (CMI). The subjects were classified into FH and endoscopy-negative reflux disease (ENRD) groups based on the Rome III criteria.
resultsThirty-three patients with esophageal motility disorder were excluded from this study, while 22 patients with abnormal esophageal acid exposure time (pH-POS) and 34 with hypersensitive esophagus (HE) were included in the ENRD group. The FH group included 22 patients with no reflux involvement. Sex, age, and body mass index did not differ significantly between the groups. The mean SF-36 values were < 50 (normal) for all scales in these groups, with no significant differences. The GSRS scores in these groups were not different and showed overlap with other gastrointestinal symptoms. The QUEST and the FSSG scores did not differ significantly between the groups. Neuroticism was diagnosed using the CMI questionnaire in 17 of the 78 included subjects within the pH-POS (n = 4), HE (n = 8), and FH (n = 5) groups, with no significant differences.
conclusionClinical characteristics of the FH and PPI-refractory ENRD groups were similar. Therefore, esophageal function should be examined via manometry and 24MII-pH testing to differentiate between them.
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.