Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30974032›Full record

ReviewNeurogastroenterology and motility2019

Ineffective esophageal motility: Concepts, future directions, and conclusions from the Stanford 2018 symposium.

C Prakash Gyawali, Daniel Sifrim, Dustin A Carlson, Mary Hawn, David A Katzka, John E Pandolfino, Roberto Penagini, Sabine Roman, Edoardo Savarino, Roger Tatum and 3 more

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Neurogastroenterology and motility, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
10.0field-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

50 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 135 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Long-term Prognosis and Prognostic Factors in Ineffective Esophageal Motility.Journal of neurogastroenterology and motility · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. The role of high-resolution manometry in a resource challenged service.Journal of the colleges of medicine of South Africa · 2025
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Novel Technique to Diagnose Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease.The Korean journal of helicobacter and upper gastrointestinal research · 2024
    Review
  14. A practical approach to ineffective esophageal motility.Neurogastroenterology and motility · 2024
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

13 authors at 10 institutions in 5 countries.

C Prakash GyawaliDivision of Gastroenterology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri.ORCID 0000-0002-3388-0660
Daniel SifrimBarts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry Queen Mary, University of London, London, UK.
Dustin A CarlsonDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois.ORCID 0000-0002-1702-7758
Mary HawnDepartment of Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
David A KatzkaDivision of Gastroenterology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
John E PandolfinoDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois.
Roberto PenaginiUniversità degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-6918-9479
Sabine RomanDigestive Physiology, Hopital E Herriot, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Université de Lyon, Lyon, France.ORCID 0000-0002-7798-7638
Edoardo SavarinoDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Roger TatumDepartment of Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Michel VaeziDivision of Gastroenterology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee.
John O ClarkeDivision of Gastroenterology, Stanford University, Stanford, California.ORCID 0000-0003-2625-1169
George TriadafilopoulosDivision of Gastroenterology, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Stanford University · USNorthwestern University · USMayo Clinic · USQueen Mary University of London · GBUniversité Claude Bernard Lyon 1 · FRUniversity of Milan · ITUniversity of Padua · ITUniversity of Washington · USVanderbilt University · USWashington University in St. Louis · US

Funding

Role of altered response to volumetric distension in esophageal diseaseP01DK117824 · NIDDK · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI PANDOLFINO, JOHN E · 2018 to 2022
$7.3M
NIDDK NIH HHS P01 DK117824
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIneffective esophageal motility (IEM) is a heterogenous minor motility disorder diagnosed when ≥50% ineffective peristaltic sequences (distal contractile integral <450 mm Hg cm s) coexist with normal lower esophageal sphincter relaxation (integrated relaxation pressure < upper limit of normal) on esophageal high-resolution manometry (HRM). Ineffective esophageal motility is not consistently related to disease states or symptoms and may be seen in asymptomatic healthy individuals. PURPOSE: A 1-day symposium of esophageal experts reviewed existing literature on IEM, and this review represents the conclusions from the symposium. Severe IEM (>70% ineffective sequences) is associated with higher esophageal reflux burden, particularly while supine, but milder variants do not progress over time or consistently impact quality of life. Ineffective esophageal motility can be further characterized using provocative maneuvers during HRM, especially multiple rapid swallows, where augmentation of smooth muscle contraction defines contraction reserve. The presence of contraction reserve may predict better prognosis, lesser reflux burden and confidence in a standard fundoplication for surgical management of reflux. Other provocative maneuvers (solid swallows, standardized test meal, rapid drink challenge) are useful to characterize bolus transit in IEM. No effective pharmacotherapy exists, and current managements target symptoms and concurrent reflux. Novel testing modalities (baseline and mucosal impedance, functional lumen imaging probe) show promise in elucidating pathophysiology and stratifying IEM phenotypes. Specific prokinetic agents targeting esophageal smooth muscle need to be developed for precision management.

Indexed as

CaliforniaCongresses as TopicEsophageal Motility DisordersForecastingHumansManometrycontraction reservedysphagiagastroesophageal reflux diseasehigh-resolution manometryineffective esophageal motilitymultiple rapid swallows

Identifiers

PMID30974032
PMCPMC9380027
OpenAlexW2937470620

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.