ArticleBiomedical reports2019
Evaluation of symptomatic reflux esophagitis in proton pump inhibitor users.
Article in Biomedical reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Laparoscopic Hiatal Repair and Gastropexy without Fundoplication of Hiatal Hernia in Elderly Patients with High Dysphagia Score: A Case Series of Four Patients.Surgical case reports · 2025Article
- Predicting reflux symptom recurrence: The impact of gastroesophageal junction indicators and body mass index among outpatients.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to evaluate symptomatic reflux esophagitis (RE) in proton pump inhibitor (PPI) users. The present study conducted a hospital-based, retrospective cross-sectional study of consecutive RE cases in PPI users at Juntendo University Hospital recruited between 2008 and 2016. Eligible patients were PPI users with a complete patient profile, who completed the Frequency Scale for the Symptoms of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (FSSG) questionnaire, and who underwent upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for the examination of RE, hiatal hernia (HH) and endoscopic gastric mucosal atrophy (EGA). The patients with RE who were administered PPIs were divided into two groups: Those with symptomatic RE (FSSG≥8) and those with non-symptomatic RE (FSSG<8). The present study investigated the risk factors for symptomatic RE among the patients with RE patients who were administered PPIs. Of the 13,052 cases who underwent patient profiling, the FSSG questionnaire and upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, a total of 2,444 PPI users were eligible. Of the PPI users, 206 cases (8.4%) had RE. Among the 206 patients with RE, 115 (55.8%) had symptomatic RE. The profile of the symptomatic and non-symptomatic RE groups were as follows: A total of 45 females (39.1%) vs. 32 females (35.2%; non-significant); mean ± standard deviation age, 54.8±13.5 vs. 62.9±11.1 years (P<0.01); mean body mass index, 23.5±3.3 vs. 23.2±3.8 (non-significant); severe RE, 12 (10.4%) vs. 2 (2.2%; P<0.05); HH, 70 (60.9%) vs. 40 (44.0%; P<0.05); and mean score of EGA, 1.2±1.8 vs. 1.8±2.1 (P<0.05). Multivariate analysis revealed that a younger age [odds ratio (OR)=0.94; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.92-0.97, P<0.01] and HH(+) (OR=2.37; 95% CI: 1.30-4.34, P<0.01) were associated with symptomatic RE among patients with RE who were administered PPIs. In conclusion, a younger age and HH were associated with symptomatic RE in patients with RE who were administered PPIs.
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.