ArticleDysphagia2022
Characterization of Esophageal and Sphincter Reflexes across Maturation in Dysphagic Infants with Oral Feeding Success vs Infants requiring Gastrostomy.
Article in Dysphagia, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- High-resolution esophageal manometry in children.Clinical and experimental pediatrics · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
To test the hypothesis that esophageal and sphincteric sensory-motor reflexes are distinct across maturation in infants with dysphagia receiving gastrostomy-tube (G-tube). This is a retrospective review of 29 dysphagic infants (N = 15 study requiring gastrostomy, N = 14 age matched control achieving oral feeds) that underwent longitudinal pharyngeal-esophageal manometry at 42.3 (37-50.2) weeks postmenstrual age (PMA) and 48.9 (43.3-57.9) weeks PMA. Graded stimuli (0.1-5 mL) of varying media (air, water, and apple juice) tested esophageal peristaltic reflex, upper esophageal sphincter contractile reflex (UESCR), and lower esophageal sphincter relaxation reflex (LESRR). Comparisons were performed between study and controls and across maturation (time-1 vs time-2). Data represented as mean ± SE or OR (95% CI). Across maturation (time-1 vs time-2): Study infants did not exhibit significant differences across in peristaltic, UES, or LES reflexes (all p > 0.05). In contrast, controls exhibited increased UES resting pressure (13 ± 3 vs 17 ± 3 mmHg, p = 0.001), LES resting pressure (22 ± 3 vs 25 ± 3 mmHg, p < 0.009), LES nadir pressure (0.5 ± 1 vs 4.3 ± 1 mmHg, p = 0.001), and esophago-deglutition responses [2.5 (1.23-4.88), p = 0.04], and decreased secondary peristalsis [0.44 (0.31-0.61), p = 0.001], UESCR [0.4 (0.25-0.65), p = 0.001], LESRR [0.4 (0.24-0.75), p = 0.01], and symptoms [0.6 (0.45-0.83), p = 0.005]. Among infants with dysphagia, esophageal provocation induced peristaltic reflex, UESCR, and LESRR advance with longitudinal maturation when infants are oral-fed successfully, but not in those who received gastrostomy. Underlying mechanisms may be related to esophageal sensitivity, afferent or efferent transmission, and coordination of upstream excitation and downstream inhibition, which can be potential therapeutic targets for improving feeding capabilities after gastrostomy placement in infants with dysphagia.
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.