ArticleBMC gastroenterology2017
Comparison of oesophageal function tests between Chinese non-erosive reflux disease and reflux hypersensitivity patients.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The progression rate and risk factor analysis of small gastric subepithelial tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Pooled it
- Utility of the Post-Reflux Swallow-Induced Peristaltic Wave Index and Mean Nocturnal Baseline Impedance for the Diagnosis of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Phenotypes in Children.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Recent insights on functional heartburn and reflux hypersensitivity.Current opinion in gastroenterology · 2022Review
- Reflux Hypersensitivity: A New Functional Esophageal Disorder.Journal of neurogastroenterology and motility · 2017Review
- Comparison of Esophageal Function Tests in Chinese Patients with Functional Heartburn and Reflux Hypersensitivity.Gastroenterology research and practice · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBy means of 24 h multi-channel intraluminal impedance and pH recording (MII/pH), patients with heartburn and normal upper gastrointestinal endoscopy findings can be classified into those with non-erosive reflux disease (NERD) and those with reflux hypersensitivity (RH). Therefore, in this study, we investigated the difference in oesophageal function tests in Chinese patients with NERD and RH.
methodsNERD patients were selected from the digestive department, Beijing Anzhen Hospital and Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, after upper gastrointestinal endoscope, high-resolution manometry and impedance (HRiM), and MII/pH examinations between 2014 and 2016.
resultsIn total, 111 NERD patients with abnormal acid exposure, and 92 RH patients were enrolled. Values for NERD and RH were as follows: lower oesophageal sphincter pressure, 15.3 ± 8.9 and 19.3 ± 23.3 mmHg (P = 0.122); integrated relaxation pressure, 7.5 ± 4.8 and 7.9 ± 5.2 mmHg (P = 0.485); distal contractile integral, 751.9 ± 856.2 and 661.9 ± 961.7 mmHg∙s∙cm (P = 0.482); ineffective oesophageal motility rate, 49.5% and 41.3% (P = 0.241); fragmented peristalsis rate, 5.4% and 9.8% (P = 0.235); hiatal hernia rate, 9.0% and 8.6% (P = 0.938); total bolus transit time, 6.3 ± 1.3 and 6.5 ± 1.3 s (P = 0.119); complete bolus transit rate, 76.1 ± 33.0% and 73.1 ± 32.0% (P = 0.224); total acid exposure time, 6.1 ± 3.7% and 0.8 ± 0.8% (P < 0.001); total bolus exposure time, 2.5 ± 2.1% and 1.5 ± 1.1% (P < 0.001); proximal acid reflux events, 13.2 ± 10.5 and 9.7 ± 8.9 (P = 0.011); distal acid reflux events, 25.3 ± 15.8 and 13.4 ± 11.2 (P < 0.001); post-reflux swallow-induced peristaltic wave index, 25.1 ± 9.5% and 32.6 ± 15.2% (P < 0.001); and mean nocturnal baseline impedance, 1,450.2 ± 750.8 and 2,503.6 ± 964.1 ohms (P < 0.001), respectively.
conclusionsNERD and RH patients showed similar values on HRiM. NERD patients had greater acid exposure time, bolus exposure time, proximal and distal acid reflux events, and increased impairment of chemical clearance and mucosal integrity than RH patients. NERD and RH should be classified correctly by MII/pH to provide adequate relief from related symptoms.
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.