ArticleUnited European gastroenterology journal2018
The Rome IV versus Rome III criteria for heartburn diagnosis: A comparative study.
Article in United European gastroenterology journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Esophageal microbial dysbiosis impairs mucosal barrier integrity via toll-like receptor 2 pathway in patients with gastroesophageal reflux symptoms.Journal of translational medicine · 2024Article
- A single-center retrospective study on epidemiological and Traditional Chinese Medicine syndrome characteristics of 21010 patients with reflux/heartburn symptoms.Journal of traditional Chinese medicine = Chung i tsa chih ying wen pan · 2023Article
- Upright Integrated Relaxation Pressure Predicts Symptom Outcome for Esophagogastric Junction Outflow Obstruction.Journal of neurogastroenterology and motility · 2021Article
- Rome III, Rome IV, and Potential Asia Symptom Criteria for Functional Dyspepsia Do Not Reliably Distinguish Functional From Organic Disease.Clinical and translational gastroenterology · 2020Observational
- [Esophageal pH-impedance monitoring of reflux patterns in non-erosive reflux disease, reflux hypersensitivity and functional heartburn].Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe phenotypes of heartburn patients are heterogeneous.
objectiveThe objective of this study was to investigate the proportion of heartburn phenotypes in a Chinese population and to compare the Rome IV and III criteria for heartburn diagnosis.
methodsA retrospective study was performed among heartburn patients referred for upper endoscopy and esophageal function tests in a tertiary hospital. Their symptoms fulfilled Rome IV and III criteria.
resultsA total of 233 patients were included. Fifty-nine patients (25%) were diagnosed with esophagitis, 96 (41%) with non-erosive reflux disease (NERD) and 78 (34%) with functional heartburn (FH) based on Rome III criteria. Approximately 70% of the Rome III NERD patients were changed based on Rome IV criteria, with 36 patients (15%) diagnosed with reflux hypersensitivity (RH) and 32 patients (14%) who didn't fulfill the criteria considered unclassified. The FH and RH patients showed higher esophagogastric junction-contractile integral (EGJ-CI) and less hiatal hernia than did Rome IV NERD patients. The unclassified had more hiatal hernias than the FH and RH (
conclusionThe Rome IV criteria were stricter for heartburn diagnosis and superior in distinguishing NERD from functional disorders on motility patterns than Rome III.
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.