ReviewCurrent gastroenterology reports2021
Beyond the Eckardt Score: Patient-Reported Outcomes Measures in Esophageal Disorders.
Review in Current gastroenterology reports, 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Definition of Clinically Meaningful Thresholds for the Brief Esophageal Dysphagia Questionnaire and Eckardt Score: A Multicenter Psychometric Study.Neurogastroenterology and motility · 2026Article
- Translation and cross-sectional validation of the achalasia patient reported outcomes questionnaire in a Dutch cohort.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Urdu adaptation and validation of a disease-specific quality-of-life questionnaire in a Pakistani population of Achalasia.PloS one · 2025Article
- Recurrent dysphagia after myotomy for achalasia: pneumatic dilation or POEM? : Which modality offers superior outcomes?Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Validation of the Achalasia Patient-Reported Outcomes Questionnaire.Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics · 2022Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewTo provide an overview of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and summarize their role in assessing undifferentiated dysphagia and common esophageal disorders, including achalasia, eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). RECENT
findingsGiven the subjective nature of swallowing disorders, accurate diagnoses often rely on capturing the patient experience. As a result, the number of PROMs used to characterize esophageal symptoms is increasing with a recent particular emphasis on EoE. Overall, esophageal-focused PROMs are used to interpret patient symptoms and quality of life, diagnosis, and symptom changes over time. There are limitations with each instrument, including factors affecting validity, reliability, accessibility, patient participation, and logistical implementation. PROM instruments can be helpful tools in the diagnosis and treatment of esophageal disorders. Instruments should be chosen based on factors such as target population and setting, including research, clinical, and quality improvement efforts. Future research should address how best to implement PROMs and integrate the obtained data with patient care.
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.