ArticleAnnals of gastroenterology
Can the upper esophageal sphincter contractile integral help classify achalasia?
Article in Annals of gastroenterology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Upper Esophageal Sphincter Metrics across Eosinophilic Esophagitis, Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease and Functional Dysphagia: A Pilot Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- The upper esophageal sphincter in the high-resolution manometry era.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2021Review
- Mechanisms and management considerations of parent-chosen feeding approaches to infants with swallowing difficulties: an observational study.Scientific reports · 2021Observational
- Upper Esophageal Sphincter Motility and Thoracic Pressure are Determinants of Pressurized Waves in Achalasia Subtypes According to the Chicago Classification.World journal of surgery · 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
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of high-resolution manometry (HRM) in achalasia patients has revealed abnormal findings concerning upper esophageal sphincter (UES) function. The introduction of the UES contractile integral (UES-CI), as with the distal contractile integral (DCI), may complement the interpretation of the manometric study of achalasia subtypes, defined by the Chicago Classification v3.0.
methodsPatients were classified into achalasia subtypes based on HRM. UES length (cm), UES resting pressure (mmHg), and UES residual pressure (mmHg) were recorded. UES-CI (mmHg·sec·cm) was calculated in a manner similar to that used for the DCI measurement at rest (landmark CI), corrected for respiration, and its relation to achalasia subtypes was evaluated.
resultsTwenty-four achalasia patients with mean age 55.29 years were included. Of these, 16.6% (n=4) were diagnosed with achalasia type I, 58.3% (n=14) with type II, and 25% (n=6) with type III. The landmark UES-CI, mean UES-CI, UES-CI corrected for respiration, and UES resting pressure were found to be significantly higher among patients with achalasia type II compared to the other types (1768.9 vs. 677.1, P=0.03; 1827.1 vs. 3555.1, P=0.036; 174.2 vs. 72.8, P=0.027; and 108.1 vs. 55.8, P=0.009, respectively).
conclusionsWe introduce the CI index as a tool for the manometric evaluation of the UES in achalasia. UES resting pressure, landmark UES-CI and mean UES-CI were significantly higher in achalasia patients with panesophageal pressurization compared to types I and III. This finding may reflect a protective reaction against the risk of aspiration in this group, but further studying and clinical correlation is required.
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.