ArticleThe Indian journal of surgery2017
Is the Routine Use of Impedance Analysis for the Diagnosis of Gastro-Esophageal Reflux Disease More Expensive than Conventional pH Monitoring? Cost Analysis of Two Procedures.
Article in The Indian journal of surgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnosis and treatment of patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease - a systematic review of cost-effectiveness and economic burden.BMC health services research · 2024Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Conventional 24-h pH monitoring is the gold standard for the diagnosis of non-erosive, non-acidic gastro-esophageal reflux disease. Multichannel Intraluminal Impedance (MII) analysis markedly improves diagnostic accuracy of non-erosive, non-acidic gastro-esophageal reflux disease. However, MII catheters are more expensive than standard catheters. This study aimed to determine the rates of acid or non-acid reflux and by making a retrospective projection, to predict the costs of two algorithms. We retrospectively reviewed the medical data of 102 patients who presented to our hospital with suspected non-erosive GERD and underwent 24 h impedance/pH-monitoring. Demographic characteristics, Demeester scores, number of reflux episodes, and results of impedance analysis were recorded. According to these data, cost was calculated either for the scenario in which impedance measurement was performed solely or following a negative conventional pH monitoring. Thirty-seven of all 102 patients (36.3 %) had a Demeester score greater than 14.7. These patients were assigned as group 1 (acid reflux). The impedance analysis of the remaining 65 patients detected 34 patients (33.3 %) to have more than 50 reflux episodes over a period of 24 h and assigned as Group 2, and 31 patients (30.4 %) had no reflux (group 3). The cost of the single- step algorithm using MII catheter was calculated as $15,300, while the total cost of two-step scenario would have been predicted as $16,890. Our study showed that an initial conventional pH monitoring can make the diagnosis of GERD in only one third of the patients with suspected non-erosive GERD. In nearly two-thirds of patients, however, repeated procedures and use of impedance catheters are needed. It is clear that this algorithm has certain drawbacks with regard to cost, patient comfort, and workforce loss.
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.