ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2019
Ineffective Esophageal Motility Is Associated with Impaired Bolus Clearance but Does Not Correlate with Severity of Dysphagia.
Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Esophageal and Oropharyngeal Dysphagia: Clinical Recommendations From the United European Gastroenterology and European Society for Neurogastroenterology and Motility.United European gastroenterology journal · 2025Guideline
- Modified Xiaochaihu Decoction for gastroesophageal reflux disease: A randomized double-simulation controlled trial.World journal of gastroenterology · 2021Trial
- Ineffective Esophageal Motility and Its Predictors in Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Patients with Pathologic Acid Exposure Time.Journal of neurogastroenterology and motility · 2026Article
- Comparative Prevalence of Ineffective Esophageal Motility: Impact of Chicago v4.0 vs. v3.0 Criteria.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- The Need for Updated Classification of Esophageal Motility Disorders Using High-resolution Impedance Manometry.Journal of neurogastroenterology and motility · 2024Article
- Comparing Patients Diagnosed With Ineffective Esophageal Motility by the Chicago Classification Version 3.0 and Version 4.0 Criteria.Gastroenterology research · 2023Article
- Clinical Characteristics of Patients With Ineffective Esophageal Motility by Chicago Classification Version 4.0 Compared to Chicago Classification Version 3.0.Journal of neurogastroenterology and motility · 2023Article
- The Supportive Role of Provocative Maneuvers and Impedance Clearance in Detecting Ineffective Esophageal Motility.Gastroenterology research · 2022Article
- Advancing high-resolution manometry: evaluating the use of multiple rapid swallows versus apple viscous swallows in clinical practice.Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 2022Article
- [Chicago Classification ver. 4.0: Diagnosis of Peristaltic Disorder].The Korean journal of gastroenterology = Taehan Sohwagi Hakhoe chi · 2022Review
- Patients with ineffective esophageal motility benefit from laparoscopic antireflux surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
- Esophageal motility disorders on high-resolution manometry: Chicago classification version 4.0Neurogastroenterology and motility · 2021Review
- Minor esophageal functional disorders: are they relevant?Current treatment options in gastroenterology · 2020Review
- High prevalence of esophagitis in patients with severe ineffective esophageal motility: need for a new diagnostic cutoff.Annals of gastroenterologyArticle
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
backgroundIneffective esophageal motility (IEM) is defined as a distal contractile integral < 450 mmHg/s/cm in at least 50% of ten liquid swallows on high-resolution esophageal manometry (HREM). Whether this latest definition correlates with degree of symptoms has not been studied.
methodsPatients presenting for HREM prospectively rated their symptoms using the Eckardt score. Topography plots were retrospectively reviewed and classified according to the latest Chicago Classification. Patients with non-obstructive dysphagia and an Eckardt score of at least 1 were included. Patients with major motility disorders were excluded. Scores between patients with IEM (group A) and patients with normal classification (group B) were compared using two-tailed t-tests. Spearman's correlation coefficient was calculated to determine correlation between symptoms and percent bolus clearance.
resultsA total of 241 patients were screened; 33 patients met criteria for group A and 44 patients for group B. There was no difference between the two groups in mean symptom severity for dysphagia (1.63 vs. 1.61, P = 0.89), chest pain (0.67 vs. 0.75, P = 0.64), regurgitation (1.06 vs. 0.85, P = 0.32), or weight loss (0.85 vs. 0.49, P = 0.11). The percent bolus clearance was significantly lower in group A (46.5% vs. 76.7%, P > 0.01). There was a moderate inverse correlation between dysphagia and percent bolus clearance (R = - 0.37) in group A, but none in group B (R = 0.09).
conclusionThe classification of IEM did not discriminate from normal studies for symptom severity in our cohort. However, patients with IEM did have an inverse correlation between dysphagia score and bolus clearance, but those without IEM did not. Adding impedance information to the motor pattern classification should be considered in the symptom assessment in minor motility disorders.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30535781What 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.