ArticleEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2018
Comparison of unidirectional and circumferential manometric measures within the pharyngoesophageal segment: an exploratory study.
Article in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Endoluminal Procedures and Devices for Esophageal Tract Investigation: A Critical Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Pooled it
- Normative High-Resolution Pharyngeal Manometry: Impact of Age, Size of System, and Sex on Primary Metrics and Pressure Stability.Dysphagia · 2024Article
- Variables influencing manometric parameters of deglutitive and non-deglutitive upper esophageal sphincter: A study of 89 asymptomatic participants.Neurogastroenterology and motility · 2022Article
- Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNotable differences have been identified between low-resolution manometry (LRM) and high-resolution manometry (HRM) in normative data.
objectiveThis study aimed to investigate within-subject differences between unidirectional LRM and circumferential HRM solid-state measurement sensors in the pharyngoesophageal segment during swallowing.
methodsTen healthy subjects (mean 26.9 years) were evaluated with both a 2.10 mm unidirectional catheter and a 2.75 mm circumferential catheter, with randomized order of catheter placement. Unidirectional measurements were made in four directions (posterior, anterior, right-lateral, left-lateral). Pressures and durations were analyzed to compare (1) posterior to anterior and lateral recordings and (2) posterior and average-LRM measures (C-LRM) to HRM measures at same anatomical location.
resultsNo significant differences were found in any of the measures across the four radial directions. A lower amplitude was measured in C-LRM compared to HRM for pharyngeal sensors (LRM Sensor 1: - 39.7 mmHg; Sensor 2: - 61.4 mmHg). Compared with posterior-LRM, HRM recorded higher UES pressures (- 12.8 mmHg) and longer UES relaxation durations (- 0.31 s).
conclusionThis exploratory study is the first to compare within-subject pressures between unidirectional LRM and circumferential HRM. Substantial differences in pharyngeal manometric measures were found, particularly with regard to UES function. This is clinically important as manometry is uniquely able to evaluate UES function and clarify differential diagnoses in patients with dysphagia.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29946881What 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.