ArticleEsophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society2022
Advancing high-resolution manometry: evaluating the use of multiple rapid swallows versus apple viscous swallows in clinical practice.
Article in Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHigh-Resolution Manometry (HRM) with provocative maneuvers, such as Multiple Rapid Swallows (MRS) and Apple Viscous Swallows (AVS), is commonly utilized to diagnose esophageal disorders. Increasing standardization in HRM protocol can help save time and reduce patient discomfort. This study assesses AVS and MRS to determine their respective benefits and limitations.
methodsRetrospective reviews were performed on 100 patients to analyze their AVS and/or MRS results. Parameters included abnormal motility patterns, tolerance, and DCI. Diagnostic benefits from MRS and AVS were assessed. Based on the previous studies, additional benefit from MRS was defined as detection of good peristaltic reserve, weak peristaltic reserve, or an abnormal motility/pressurization pattern. Additional benefit from AVS was defined as detection of IEM features or abnormal motility/pressurization pattern.
resultsWhen patients completed both MRS and AVS (n = 70), MRS provided additional benefit in assessing 36% of patients, while AVS provided additional benefit in 19% of patients (p < 0.0001). Furthermore, MRS detected significantly more abnormal motility/pressurization patterns than AVS (27% MRS; 8% AVS; p = 0.0005). Two unique strengths of AVS were higher tolerance for test completion (p = 0.009) and better detection of severe hypokinetic disorders in 4% of patients, which were missed by MRS.
conclusionsMRS may uniquely identify abnormal motility/pressurization patterns, such as paradoxical LES response, distal pressurization, hypercontractile, and spasm patterns. These findings argue for a tailored approach when selecting provocative testing. MRS may be more useful for patients with abnormal pathophysiology, while AVS may help to supplement MRS in detecting severe hypokinetic disorders in preoperative management.
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.