ReviewNeurogastroenterology and motility2021
Chicago classification version 4.0
Review in Neurogastroenterology and motility, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
47 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Esophageal and Oropharyngeal Dysphagia: Clinical Recommendations From the United European Gastroenterology and European Society for Neurogastroenterology and Motility.United European gastroenterology journal · 2025Guideline
- European Guideline on Chronic Nausea and Vomiting-A UEG and ESNM Consensus for Clinical Management.United European gastroenterology journal · 2025Guideline
- Pooled it
- Definition of Clinically Meaningful Thresholds for the Brief Esophageal Dysphagia Questionnaire and Eckardt Score: A Multicenter Psychometric Study.Neurogastroenterology and motility · 2026Article
- Timed Barium Esophagography in Esophagogastric Junction Outflow Obstruction: A Retrospective Radiologic Assessment.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Application of High-Resolution Impedance Manometry for Evaluation of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease in Patients with Obesity Based on the Updated Lyon Consensus 2.0 and Chicago Classification v4.0.Obesity surgery · 2026Article
- Utilization trends for esophageal motility testing in the United States.Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus · 2026Article
- Divergent Management of the Foregut Between Pulmonologists and Gastroenterologists in Advanced Cystic Fibrosis Lung Disease.Pediatric pulmonology · 2026Article
- Laryngopharyngeal Symptoms and Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Disease: Diagnostic Testing and Clinical Approach Based on the San Diego Consensus.Neurogastroenterology and motility · 2026Review
- Development of a diagnostic model for esophageal achalasia assessed by esophageal high-resolution manometry using artificial intelligence.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2026Article
- Functional Dysphagia Presenting With Severe Subjective Swallowing Difficulty Despite Minimal Objective Findings: A Case Report.Case reports in otolaryngology · 2026Article
- Eosinophilic esophageal myositis: a comparative study of distinguishing features, diagnostic challenges, and therapeutic insights.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Hypercontractile Esophagus: An Underrecognized Cause of Dysphagia with a "Nutcracker" Appearance on Barium Esophagram.Journal of Brown hospital medicine · 2026Article
- Preliminary Characterization of Proximal Versus Distal Esophageal Function in Healthy, Asymptomatic Adults.Neurogastroenterology and motility · 2026Article
- Future perspectives in esophageal manometry.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Review
- Effect of carbonated water on esophageal high-resolution manometry metrics: a retrospective study.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Robotic Heller Myotomy for Achalasia: A Narrative Review of the State-of-the-Art Technique and Its Future Directions.Cureus · 2025Review
- The conundrum of esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction: Answers to key clinical questions.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2025Review
- Normal Values in Esophageal High-Resolution Manometry Performed Using 36-Channel Water-Perfused Catheter or Solid-State Catheter.The Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The Chicago Classification v4.0 (CCv4.0) is the updated classification scheme for esophageal motility disorders using metrics from high-resolution manometry (HRM). A key feature of CCv.4.0 is the more rigorous and expansive protocol that incorporates single wet swallows acquired in different positions (supine, upright) and provocative testing, including multiple rapid swallows and rapid drink challenge. Additionally, solid bolus swallows, solid test meal, and/or pharmacologic provocation can be used to identify clinically relevant motility disorders and other conditions (eg, rumination) that occur during and after meals. The acquisition and analysis for performing these tests and the evidence supporting their inclusion in the Chicago Classification protocol is detailed in this technical review. Provocative tests are designed to increase the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of HRM studies for disorders of esophageal motility. These changes attempt to minimize ambiguity in prior iterations of Chicago Classification, decrease the proportion of HRM studies that deliver inconclusive diagnoses and increase the number of patients with a clinically relevant diagnosis that can direct effective therapy. Another aim in establishing a standard manometry protocol for motility laboratories around the world is to facilitate procedural consistency, improve diagnostic reliability, and promote collaborative research.
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.