ArticleCurrent treatment options in gastroenterology2016
Patient-Reported Outcomes in Eosinophilic Esophagitis and Achalasia.
Article in Current treatment options in gastroenterology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy and Safety of Budesonide in the Treatment of Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized and Non-Randomized Studies.Drugs in R&D · 2018Pooled it
- The Dual Lens of Endoscopy and Histology in the Diagnosis and Management of Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disorders-A Comprehensive Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Expert Recommendations on the Diagnosis of Eosinophilic Esophagitis in the United Arab Emirates.Cureus · 2024Review
- Optimal Assessment, Treatment, and Monitoring of Adults with Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Strategies to Improve Outcomes.ImmunoTargets and therapy · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
opinion statementThe activity of a particular esophageal disease, such as eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) or achalasia, can be evaluated using clinician-reported outcome (ClinRO) measures assessing various endoscopic, histologic, functional, and laboratory findings, and patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. The patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are those that are designed to be self-reported by patients. Commonly used PRO instruments include those that assess symptom severity, health-related quality of life, "general" quality of life, or health status. Regulatory authorities increasingly rely on PRO measures to support labeling claims for drug development. Validated PRO measures for various esophageal diseases are needed in order to unify and standardize the way disease activity is assessed, define clinically meaningful endpoints for use in interventional and observational studies, compare the efficacy/effectiveness of various therapies, and optimize therapeutic algorithms for management of these diseases. This article reviews commonly used PRO instruments designed to assess symptom severity and quality of life in adult patients with EoE and achalasia.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26831294What 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.