ReviewDigestive diseases and sciences2017
The Quality of Care for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease.
Review in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05050188 (A Phase I, Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo- and Positive-controlled Study to Evaluate the Safety, Tolerability and Pharmacokinetics/Pharmacodynamics), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 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.
A Phase I, Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo- and Positive-controlled Study to Evaluate the Safety, Tolerability and Pharmacokinetics/Pharmacodynamics (PK/PD) of Multiple Oral Doses of H008 (Carenoprazan Hydrochloride Tablets) in Healthy Volunteers
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Direct Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Vonoprazan Versus Proton-Pump Inhibitors for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2021Pooled it
- PPI Misuse in Bangladesh: Confronting a Silent Epidemic Through Deprescribing and Regulatory Reform-A Policy Perspective.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Hyaluronic acid and chondroitin sulfate-based medical devices: formulations, esophageal mucosal protection, and their place in the management of GERD.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2025Review
- Patient journey in gastroesophageal reflux disease: real-world perspectives from Italian gastroenterologists, primary care physicians, and ENT specialists.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Best Practices in Treatment of Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Disease: A Multidisciplinary Modified Delphi Study.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2023Article
- Magnetic sphincter augmentation: Optimal patient selection and referral care pathways.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2019Review
- The Proton Pump Inhibitor Nonresponder: a Behavioral Approach to Improvement and Wellness.Current gastroenterology reports · 2018Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Improving the quality of healthcare delivery is a cornerstone of modern medical care shared between all stakeholders. However, effectively improving quality requires both an understanding of the tenets of healthcare quality and how they relate to an individual disease process. This is especially important for common diseases, such as gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), where wide variations in practice exist. The high prevalence of GERD coupled with wide variation in clinical approach results in significant economic burden and poor quality of care. Thus, GERD serves as a useful framework to highlight the opportunities and current challenges of delivering high-quality care. In this article, we identify quality metrics in GERD and the areas in need of research to improve the quality of the management of GERD. Additionally, we suggest strategies for improvement as it relates to the proper diagnostic testing utilization and the decision-making process.
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.