ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2021
Type II Achalasia Is Increasing in Prevalence.
Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Type II achalasia with focal elevated pressures: A distinct manometric and clinical sub-group.Neurogastroenterology and motility · 2022Article
- Esophageal Motility Disorders: Current Approach to Diagnostics and Therapeutics.Gastroenterology · 2022Review
- Diagnostic approach to patients with suspected motility disorders: one size does not fit all.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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThree manometric subtypes of achalasia were defined in the Chicago Classification approximately 10 years ago: type I (aperistalsis), type II (pan-pressurization), and type III (spastic). Since the widespread use of this classification scheme, the evolving prevalence of these subtypes has not been elucidated. We aim to determine the prevalence of each subtype a decade after the adoption of the Chicago Classification.
methodsThis is a retrospective cohort analysis of patients diagnosed with achalasia on high-resolution manometry (HRM) at two major academic medical centers between 2015 and 2018. Patients were excluded if they had a diagnosis of another esophageal motility disorder, previously treated achalasia, or foregut surgery. Demographic data, manometric subtype, and esophageal dilatation grade on endoscopy were obtained. Prevalence of achalasia subtypes was compared with a published historical control population (2004-2007). Fischer's exact and t tests were used for analysis.
resultsOf 147 patients in the contemporary cohort and 99 in the historical control cohort, the prevalence of type I achalasia was 8% versus 21%, type II 63% versus 50%, and type III 29% versus 29%, respectively (p = 0.01). The mean age in our population was 58 years compared to 57 years in the historical control, and the proportion of men 48% versus 47%, respectively (p = 0.78). Mean endoscopic dilatation grade in the contemporary cohort was 1.5 for type I patients, 0.9 for type II, and 0.4 for type III, compared with 1.5, 0.6, and 0.4, respectively. Overall mean dilatation grade was 0.8 in our cohort versus 0.7 in the historical control (p = 0.58).
conclusionThe prevalence of type II achalasia was significantly greater and prevalence of type I significantly less in our patient population compared to our predefined historical control. Other characteristics such as age and sex did not appear to contribute to these differences. Histopathological evidence has suggested that type II achalasia may be an earlier form of type I; thus, the increased prevalence of type II achalasia may be related to earlier detection of the disease. The adoption of HRM, widespread use of the Chicago Classification, and increased disease awareness in the past decade may be contributing to these changes in epidemiology.
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.