Observational studyMedicine2019
Can endoscopists differentiate cytomegalovirus esophagitis from herpes simplex virus esophagitis based on gross endoscopic findings?
Observational study in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- AGA Clinical Practice Update on Esophageal Dysfunction Due to Disordered Immunity and Infection: Expert Review.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2024Guideline
- Herpes Simply Strikes Back: A Case of Recurrent Esophagitis in an Immunocompetent Patient.Cureus · 2026Article
- Herpes Esophagitis Occurring after Immunosuppression with Glucocorticoids.Internal medicine (Tokyo, Japan) · 2024Article
- Coinfection of cytomegalovirus and strongyloidiasis presenting as massive gastrointestinal bleeding in an immunocompromised host: a case report.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Risk Factors, Clinical and Endoscopic Features, and Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Cytomegalovirus Esophagitis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Article
- Machine learning approach for differentiating cytomegalovirus esophagitis from herpes simplex virus esophagitis.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- HSV Esophagitis in an Immunocompetent 17-Year-Old.Global pediatric health · 2021Article
- Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding Caused by SARS-CoV-2 Infection.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2020Article
- Multiple esophageal ulcers due to tofacitinib 10 mg twice daily for ulcerative colitis.Clinical journal of gastroenterology · 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
15 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Differential diagnosis between herpes simplex virus (HSV) esophagitis and cytomegalovirus (CMV) esophagitis is challenging because there are many similarities and overlaps between their endoscopic features. The aims of this study were to investigate the implications of the endoscopic findings for the diagnosis of HSV and CMV esophagitis, and to develop a predictive model for differentiating CMV esophagitis from HSV esophagitis.Patients who underwent endoscopic examination and had pathologically-confirmed HSV or CMV esophagitis were eligible. Clinical characteristics and endoscopic features were retrospectively reviewed and categorized. A predictive model was developed based on parameters identified by logistic regression analysis.During the 8-year study period, HSV and CMV esophagitis were diagnosed in 85 and 63 patients, respectively. The endoscopic features of esophagitis were categorized and scored as follows: category 1 (-3 points): discrete ulcers or ulcers with vesicles, bullae, or pseudomembranes, category 2 (-2 points): coalescent or geographic ulcers, category 3 (1 points): ulcers with an uneven base, friability, or with a circumferential distribution, category 4 (2 points): punched-out, serpiginous, or healing ulcers with yellowish exudates. And previous history of transplantation (2 point) was included in the model as a discriminating clinical feature. The optimal cutoff point of the prediction model was 0 (area under receiver operating characteristic curve: 0.967), with positive scores favoring CMV esophagitis. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 96.8%, 89.4%, 92.6%, 87.3%, and 97.5%, respectively.The predictive model based on endoscopic and clinical findings appears to be accurate and useful in differentiating CMV esophagitis from HSV esophagitis.
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.