Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29617744›Full record

SynthesisDiseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus2018

Natural history of eosinophilic esophagitis: a systematic review of epidemiology and disease course.

N J Shaheen, V Mukkada, C S Eichinger, H Schofield, L Todorova, G W Falk

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 85 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
85citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
13.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

85 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 161 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Economic burden of eosinophilic esophagitis in the first year after diagnosis in Spain: A direct medical cost analysis.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026
    Observational
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Characteristics and Clinical Management of Eosinophilic Esophagitis in Australia: A National Survey.Clinical and experimental allergy : journal of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2025
    Article
  19. Article
  20. [Eosinophilic esophagitis-an underestimated food allergy?]Dermatologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025
    Review

25 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

N J ShaheenCenter for Esophageal Diseases and Swallowing, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
V MukkadaDivision of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio.
C S EichingerPharmaGenesis London, London, UK.
H SchofieldPharmaGenesis London, London, UK.
L TodorovaShire, Zug, Switzerland.
G W FalkDivision of Gastroenterology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center · USHospital of the University of Pennsylvania · USUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Eosinophilic esophagitis is a chronic immune-mediated esophageal disorder. For its timely diagnosis, clinicians must recognize common symptoms, and understand differences in symptoms across patient groups. The aim of this study is to systematically review the epidemiology and natural history of eosinophilic esophagitis. The MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched from 1974 to February 2017 for studies describing the epidemiology and natural history of eosinophilic esophagitis. Congress abstracts from 2014 to 2016 were also searched. Search results were screened against predetermined inclusion/exclusion criteria by two independent reviewers, and data extraction was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Of 1376 articles identified, 47 met the inclusion criteria: 20 on epidemiology and 27 on natural history. Incidence and prevalence of eosinophilic esophagitis varied widely across North America and Europe, and increased over time. Incidence increased 131-fold in the Netherlands (1996-2010), 20-fold in Denmark (1997-2006), and 5.1-fold in Calgary, Canada (2004-2008). The most commonly reported symptoms were emesis and abdominal pain in children, and dysphagia and food impaction in adults. Age at diagnosis was 5.9-12.0 years in children, and approximately 30 years in adults. Time between symptom onset and diagnosis was 1.2-3.5 years in children and 3.0-8.0 years in adults. Diagnostic delay was associated with an increased risk of endoscopic features of fibrostenosis. Symptoms of eosinophilic esophagitis differed significantly by age and race. In conclusion, there is an increasing incidence and prevalence of eosinophilic esophagitis. The considerable delay between symptom onset and diagnosis suggests that clinicians do not readily recognize the disease, which may have important clinical ramifications.

Indexed as

Delayed DiagnosisDisease ProgressionEndoscopyEosinophilic EsophagitisEsophagusFemaleHumansIncidenceMalePrevalence

Identifiers

PMID29617744
PMCPMC6102800
OpenAlexW2795222305

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.