ArticleJournal of neurogastroenterology and motility2021
Diagnostic Yield of High-resolution Esophageal Manometry With Chicago Classification Version 3.0 in Thai Patients.
Article 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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dysphagia is associated with major esophageal motility disorders in the UAE: a retrospective cohort study from a tertiary care center in Abu Dhabi.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Article
- Association of esophageal motility disorder symptoms with Chicago classification versions 3.0 and 4.0 using high-resolution esophageal manometry: A single-center experience from Saudi Arabia.Saudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology Association · 2024Article
- Concise Review: Applicability of High-resolution Manometry in Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease.Journal of neurogastroenterology and motility · 2022Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsHigh-resolution manometry with the Chicago classification scheme has been introduced in clinical practice as a gold standard for esophageal motility test. This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic yield of high-resolution manometry in Thai patients.
methodsAll available high-resolution esophageal manometry (HREM) studies performed during the study period were retrospectively reviewed and interpreted according to the Chicago classification version 3.0. The main esophageal symptoms and coexisting factors were correlated with the HREM findings.
resultsOf the 201 patients, nearly half (49.8%) were documented to have dysphagia. The second most common condition was refractory reflux symptoms (17.4%). More than 70.0% of dysphagia patients showed abnormal esophageal motility, contrary to globus patients who mostly had normal test findings (65.4%). Dysphagia still was the most often correlated condition with major esophageal motility disorders (88.7%), particularly the elderly patients who have coexisting weight loss. Endoscopic and/or surgical procedures were revealed for the highest rate among patients with dysphagia but no one in the globus group needed this intervention. The sensitivity and specificity of dysphagia for major esophageal motility disorders were 70.0% and 67.0%. A much lower sensitivity and higher specificity were found in other non-dysphagia symptoms, especially nausea/vomiting or belching (3.0% or 89.0%). The highest positive likelihood ratio (2.10) to detect major abnormalities was also observed in dysphagia.
conclusionEsophageal manometry provided the highest yield in dysphagia; it was not a strongly beneficial test in patients presenting with nondysphagia to identify clinically relevant esophageal motor disorders.
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.