ArticleClinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association2016
Identification of Quality Measures for Performance of and Interpretation of Data From Esophageal Manometry.
Article in Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- A deep learning-based approach to enhance accuracy and feasibility of long-term high-resolution manometry examinations.Communications medicine · 2025Article
- Lessons learned from physician-performed high-resolution esophageal manometries.Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus · 2025Article
- Article
- Behavioral Therapy for Functional Heartburn: Recommendation Statements.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2024Article
- Clinical role of ambulatory reflux monitoring in PPI non-responders: recommendation statements.Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics · 2022Article
- Hard to Swallow Results.Dysphagia · 2022Article
- Diagnostic Yield of High-resolution Esophageal Manometry With Chicago Classification Version 3.0 in Thai Patients.Journal of neurogastroenterology and motility · 2021Article
- Chicago Classification Version 4.0 and Its Impact on Current Clinical Practice.Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2021Article
- Esophageal motility disorders on high-resolution manometry: Chicago classification version 4.0Neurogastroenterology and motility · 2021Review
- Esophageal Manometry Competency Program Improves Gastroenterology Fellow Performance in Motility Interpretation.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2020Article
- Tips for the Budding Esophagologist.Current gastroenterology reports · 2019Review
- New Developments in Esophageal Motility Testing.Current treatment options in gastroenterology · 2019Review
- A System to Assess the Competency for Interpretation of Esophageal Manometry Identifies Variation in Learning Curves.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2017Article
- High-resolution esophageal manometry: interpretation in clinical practice.Current opinion in gastroenterology · 2017Review
- Development of Quality Indicators for Endoscopic Eradication Therapies in Barrett's Esophagus: The TREAT-BE (Treatment With Resection and Endoscopic Ablation Techniques for Barrett's Esophagus) Consortium.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2017Review
- Benchmarks for the interpretation of esophageal high-resolution manometry.Neurogastroenterology and motility · 2017Article
- High Resolution Manometry Vs Conventional Line Tracing for Esophageal Motility Disorders.Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2017Article
- How to Effectively Use High-Resolution Esophageal Manometry.Gastroenterology · 2016Article
- Competency based medical education in gastrointestinal motility.Neurogastroenterology and motility · 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
18 authors at 14 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND &
aimsEsophageal manometry is the standard for the diagnosis of esophageal motility disorders. Variations in the performance and interpretation of esophageal manometry result in discrepant diagnoses and unnecessary repeated procedures, and could have negative effects on patient outcomes. We need a method to benchmark the procedural quality of esophageal manometry; as such, our objective was to formally develop quality measures for the performance and interpretation of data from esophageal manometry.
methodsWe used the RAND University of California Los Angeles Appropriateness Method (RAM) to develop validated quality measures for performing and interpreting esophageal manometry. The research team identified potential quality measures through a literature search and interviews with experts. Fourteen experts in esophageal manometry ranked the proposed quality measures for appropriateness via a 2-round process on the basis of RAM.
resultsThe experts considered a total of 29 measures; 17 were ranked as appropriate and were as follows: related to competency (2), assessment before the esophageal manometry procedure (2), the esophageal manometry procedure itself (3), and interpretation of data (10). The data interpretation measures were integrated into a single composite measure. Eight measures therefore were found to be appropriate quality measures for esophageal manometry . Five other factors also were endorsed by the experts, although these were not ranked as appropriate quality measures.
conclusionsWe identified 8 formally validated quality measures for the performance and interpretation of data from esophageal manometry on the basis of RAM. These measures represent key aspects of a high-quality esophageal manometry study and should be adopted uniformly. These measures should be evaluated in clinical practice to determine how they affect patient outcomes.
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.