ArticlePloS one2015
Histomorphological and Immunophenotypic Features of Pill-Induced Esophagitis.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Drug-induced esophagitis and helpful management for healthcare providers.Gastroenterology and hepatology from bed to bench · 2022Review
- Amoxycillin-Clavulanic Acid-Induced Esophageal Ulcer: An Unusual Cause.Case reports in gastroenterologyArticle
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
The aim of this study was to investigate histomorphological and immunophenotypic features in pill-induced esophagitis. We comparatively evaluated the histomorphological, immunophenotypic features of pill-induced esophagitis vs. reflux esophagitis, as well as clinical information and endoscopic findings. Fifty-two tissue pieces from 22 cases of pill-induced esophagitis, 46 pieces from 20 reflux esophagitis, and 16 pieces from 14 control samples were subjected to immunohistochemistry for inflammatory infiltrates (CD3 for T lymphocyte, CD20 for B lymphocyte, CD56 for NK cell, CD68 for macrophage, CD117 for mast cell) and eosinophil chemotaxis-associated proteins (Erk, leptin, leptin receptor, pSTAT3, phospho-mTOR). As a result, Histomorphology showed that a diffuse pattern of dilated intercellular spaces was more frequently observed in pill-induced esophagitis, while reactive atypia and subepithelial papillary elongation were more often found in reflux esophagitis (P < 0.05, respectively). Interestingly, intraepithelial eosinophilic microabscess, intraepithelial pustule and diffuse pattern of dilated intercellular spaces were observed in 14% (3 cases), 9% (2 cases) and 32% (7 cases) of pill-induced esophagitis, respectively, but in no cases of reflux esophagitis. Regarding intraepithelial inflammatory infiltrates in pill-induced esophagitis, T lymphocytes were the most common cells, followed by eosinophil; 11 and 7 in one x400 power field, respectively. Intraepithelial pSTAT3-positive pattern was more frequently observed in pill-induced esophagitis than in reflux esophagitis, at 45% (10 cases) versus 10% (2 cases), respectively (P < 0.05). Considering the distal esophageal lesion only, intraepithelial pustule, diffuse dilated intercellular spaces and stromal macrophages were more frequently found in distal pill-induced esophagitis, whereas reactive atypia and intraepithelial mast cells in reflux esophagitis (P < 0.05, respectively). In conclusion, diffuse dilated intercellular spaces, intraepithelial eosinophil microabscess, pustule, T lymphocytes, eosinophils, and pSTAT3 positivity can be added to histopathological features of pill-induced esophagitis, other than non-specific ulcer. Besides, distal pill-induced esophagitis may be histopathologically differentiated from reflux esophagitis.
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.