ArticleMedical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran2015
Relationship between esophageal clinical symptoms and manometry findings in patients with esophageal motility disorders: a cross-sectional study.
Article in Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran, 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.
- Does Chicago Classification address Symptom Correlation with High-resolution Esophageal Manometry?Euroasian journal of hepato-gastroenterologyArticle
- Gender is a risk factor in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of IranArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundManometry is the gold-standard diagnostic test for motility disorders in the esophagus. The development of high-resolution manometry catheters and software displays of manometry recordings in color-coded pressure plots have changed the diagnostic assessment of esophageal disease. The diagnostic value of particular esophageal clinical symptoms among patients suspected of esophageal motor disorders (EMDs) is still unknown. The aim of this study was to explore the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive accuracy of presenting esophageal symptoms between abnormal and normal esophageal manometry findings.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study of 623 patients aged 11-80 years. Data were collected from clinical examinations as well as patient questionnaires. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were calculated after high-resolution manometry plots were reviewed according to the most recent Chicago Criteria.
resultsThe clinical symptoms were not sensitive enough to discriminate between EMDs. Nevertheless, dysphagia, noncardiac chest pain, hoarseness, vomiting, and weight loss had high specificity and high accuracy to distinguish EMDs from normal findings. Regurgitation and heartburn did not have good accuracy for the diagnosis of EMDs.
conclusionClinical symptoms are not reliable enough to discriminate between EMDs. Clinical symptoms can, however, discriminate between normal findings and EMDs, especially achalasia.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26793662PMC4715411What 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.