Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31175359›Full record

ArticleDiseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus2019

Loss to follow-up after food impaction among patients with and without eosinophilic esophagitis.

Joy W Chang, Samuel Olson, Ju Young Kim, Russell Dolan, Joel Greenson, Georgiana Sanders, Joel H Rubenstein

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Marked Improvement in Food Impaction Biopsy Rate (FIBR) After Implementation of a Multicenter Behavioral Intervention.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2026
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Wide discrepancy between best practice recommendations and real-life management of suspected eosinophilic esophagitis-associated food bolus impaction.Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Barriers to Timely Diagnosis of Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Diseases.The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. In practice · 2024
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Eosinophilic esophagitis for the advanced practice provider.iGIE : innovation, investigation and insights · 2023
    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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Joy W ChangDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine.
Samuel OlsonDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine.
Ju Young KimCollege of Literature, Science, and the Arts.
Russell DolanDepartment of Internal Medicine.
Joel GreensonDepartment of Pathology.
Georgiana SandersDivision of Allergy & Immunology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan.
Joel H RubensteinDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine.
Ann Arbor VA Medical Center · USUniversity of Michigan · US

Funding

Training Program in Gastrointestinal EpidemiologyT32DK062708 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI Peter D.R. Higgins, Elliot Tapper · 2003 to 2026
$3.9M
NIDDK NIH HHS T32 DK062708
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Symptoms of esophageal dysfunction such as food impaction are consistent with, but not diagnostic for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) without obtaining histology. We conducted a retrospective study to characterize patients with food impaction at a tertiary center. We hypothesized that many patients with food impaction may be lost to follow-up and that many have features suggestive of EoE. Adult patients presenting to the emergency department with esophageal food impaction were identified from an endoscopic database. Electronic medical records were manually abstracted. We examined associations between demographics, comorbid conditions, and follow-up with biopsy findings. Of 220 patients who presented to the emergency department for food impaction, 74.1% were men. Adequate follow-up was not documented in 120 (54.5%). Those lost to follow-up did not differ significantly by gender, age at symptom onset, or distance from hospital compared to those with follow-up. Esophageal biopsies were obtained in 158 (71.8%), and those with ≥15 eos/HPF were more likely to be lost to follow-up than those with <15 eos/HPF (52.8% vs. 34.8%, P < 0.05). Of those never biopsied, 79.0% were lost to follow-up and had intermediate proportions of males, food allergy, and asthma when compared to those with and without eosinophilic inflammation. Patients with food impaction commonly have EoE but are often lost to follow-up. Among those never biopsied, demographic and clinical features suggest that many may have undiagnosed EoE. Strategies for increasing use of biopsies in patients with food impaction and improving follow-up are needed to diagnose and manage EoE.

Indexed as

Lost to Follow-UpAdultAgedBiopsyEosinophilic EsophagitisEsophagoscopyEsophagusFemaleFoodForeign BodiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective Studiesbiopsydiagnosisdysphagiaemergencyfollow-upimpaction

Identifiers

PMID31175359
PMCPMC9115375
OpenAlexW2990163562

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.