Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26921083›Full record

Trial reportDigestive diseases and sciences2016

A Randomized Controlled Comparison of Esophageal Clearance Times of Oral Budesonide Preparations.

Jody N Hefner, Robin S Howard, Robert Massey, Miland Valencia, Derek J Stocker, Katherine Q Philla, Matthew D Goldman, Cade M Nylund, Steve B Min

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Clearance of corticosteroids in pediatric patients with active eosinophilic esophagitis: Faster than expected.Pediatric allergy and immunology : official publication of the European Society of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Medical treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. White Paper AGA: Drug Development for Eosinophilic Esophagitis.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2017
    Review
  16. Management of refractory eosinophilic oesophagitis.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2017
    Review
  17. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jody N HefnerDepartment of Pediatrics, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA. jody.n.hefner.mil@mail.mil.
Robin S HowardDepartment of Research Programs, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Robert MasseyDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Miland ValenciaDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Derek J StockerDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Katherine Q PhillaDepartment of Pediatrics, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Matthew D GoldmanDepartment of Pediatrics, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Cade M NylundDepartment of Pediatrics, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Steve B MinDepartment of Pediatrics, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Walter Reed National Military Medical Center · USUniformed Services University of the Health Sciences · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTopical steroids prepared as oral viscous slurries have become common in the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis. Esophageal mucosal contact time correlates with clinical and histologic improvement.

aimTo compare the mucosal contact time of alternative oral viscous budesonide (OVB) slurries with the conventional sucralose OVB.

methodsA blinded randomized crossover trial investigating esophageal clearance of three OVB slurry preparations was done on healthy adults. Honey and xanthan gum OVB slurries were compared with standard sucralose OVB in 24 randomly assigned subjects. Each subject ingested the sucralose OVB and either the honey or xanthan gum OVB slurries. The esophageal clearance of each slurry was evaluated as an area under the curve (AUC) using 1 millicurie of technetium-99m-sulfur colloid (Tc99) co-administered in each OVB preparation using nuclear scintigraphy. A standardized taste survey was also administered.

resultsXanthan gum had greater mucosal contact time compared to sucralose as measured by a higher AUC at 3 min (P = 0.002), while honey showed no significant difference in esophageal clearance relative to sucralose. Taste scores were significantly higher in the honey group, while scores for xanthan gum were no different from standard sucralose.

conclusionOVB slurries utilizing xanthan gum may be a superior alternative to a sucralose-based slurry due to its increased mucosal contact time and similar taste tolerance. Honey may be a suitable alternative as well, due to its similar contact time and favorable taste.

Indexed as

Administration, OralAdultArea Under CurveBudesonideCross-Over StudiesFemaleHoneyHumansMaleMiddle AgedPolysaccharides, BacterialSucroseYoung AdultBudesonidePolysaccharides, BacterialSucrosetrichlorosucrosexanthan gumBudesonideEosinophilic esophagitisHoneyOVBViscous budesonide slurryXanthan gum

Identifiers

PMID26921083
OpenAlexW2286820392

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.