ReviewJournal of neurogastroenterology and motility2021
Pitfalls in the Interpretation of Chicago Classification for Esophageal Motility Disorders.
Review in Journal of neurogastroenterology and motility, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnosis of Sliding Hiatal Hernia in Patients With Morbid Obesity: A Comparison of High-resolution Esophageal Manometry and Upper Gastrointestinal Series.Journal of neurogastroenterology and motility · 2025Article
- Esophageal high-resolution manometry demands visual interpretation in addition to mathematical software-based analysis.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
High-resolution manometry permitted the creation of the Chicago classification, that is the categorization for esophageal motility disorders most currently used. Despite its wide acceptance, there are few pitfalls for the correct interpretation of the tests. This technique review illustrates some difficult cases that may lead to misinterpretation of the results. Difficult cases are analyzed, such as the distinction of: (1) esophagogastric junction morphology and lower esophageal sphincter excursion, (2) intrabolus pressure pattern or common cavity, (3) hypercontractile esophagus (jackhammer) and achalasia type III, (4) absent contractility and severe ineffective esophageal motility or achalasia type I, and (5) simultaneous distal esophageal spasm and ineffective esophageal motility.
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.