ArticleSurgical endoscopy2017
Comparison of the multichannel intraluminal impedance pH and conventional pH for measuring esophageal acid exposure: a propensity score-matched analysis.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2017. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors affecting the treatment outcomes of laparoscopic fundoplication for erosive reflux esophagitis: findings of esophageal pathological function tests.Surgery today · 2021Article
- Evidence-Based Practice Guideline for Surgical Treatment of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease 2018.Journal of gastric cancer · 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
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe modalities for evaluating acid reflux in medical care for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) include conventional pH (C-pH), wireless pH (Bravo
methodsPrior to initial laparoscopic fundoplication carried out on 297 cases from December 1994 to April 2016, an upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and C-pH or MII-pH were conducted. A propensity score-matched analysis was carried out about five factors including age, sex, BMI, the extent of reflux esophagitis (Los Angeles classification), and the presence of hiatal hernia (HH), ultimately leading to the creation of a C-pH group (81 cases) and MII-pH group (81 cases) as the subjects.
resultsConcerning pH < 4 holding time (18.9 vs. 7.3%, p < 0.001), DeMeester score (58.5 vs. 24.4, p < 0.001), and the number of times reflux continued for longer than 5 min (8.8 vs. 4.1 times/day, p = 0.002), the C-pH group had significantly higher values for each, while the positive rate of acid reflux (Positive pH) was significantly higher in the C-pH group (p < 0.001), at 80% in the C-pH group and 42% in the MII-pH group. In terms of the correlation between the extent of reflux esophagitis and pH < 4 holding time, a moderate level of positive correlation was seen in both the C-pH group and MII-pH group (r of each = 0.427, r = 0.408); moreover, regardless of the presence of HH, the holding time was significantly higher in the C-pH group than the MII-pH group (p of each <0.001, p = 0.040).
conclusionWhile the values of each parameter regarding acid reflux are calculated as lower in MII-pH than in C-pH, there is no difference in the evaluation of the pathology between the two modalities.
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.