ArticleThe American journal of gastroenterology2018
Editorial: Assessing Esophageal Function in Achalasia: The Old and the New.
Article in The American journal of gastroenterology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bridging the Gap between Advancements in the Evolution of Diagnosis and Treatment towards Better Outcomes in Achalasia.BioMed research international · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
- Comment on
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Achalasia is currently diagnosed according to the Chicago Classification v3.0 using high-resolution manometry and treatment focuses on disruption of the esophagogastric junction. A paper in this issue examines the utility of a timed barium esophagram with a 13 mm tablet challenge in differentiating achalasia from other diagnoses, finding 100% sensitivity. However, a large proportion of patients with non-achalasia dysphagia are also identified. Another paper in this issue proposes utilizing intraprocedure functional luminal imaging probe measurement during pneumatic dilation as a guide for upsizing dilations. This appears promising, but prospective validation is necessary before this becomes standard of care.
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.