ArticleNeurogastroenterology and motility2023
From Chicago classification v3.0 to v4.0: Diagnostic changes and clinical implications.
Article in Neurogastroenterology and motility, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline 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
- Obesity Impacts the Likelihood of Symptom Resolution in Patients with Esophagogastric Junction Outflow Obstruction.Dysphagia · 2025Article
- A practical approach to ineffective esophageal motility.Neurogastroenterology and motility · 2024Review
- 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
- A Comparison between Chicago Classification Versions 3.0 and 4.0 and Their Impact on Manometric Diagnoses in Esophageal High-Resolution Manometry Cases.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Major mixed motility disorders: An important subset of esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction.Neurogastroenterology and motility · 2023Review
- Comparing Patients Diagnosed With Ineffective Esophageal Motility by the Chicago Classification Version 3.0 and Version 4.0 Criteria.Gastroenterology research · 2023Article
- From Chicago classification v3.0 to v4.0: Diagnostic changes and clinical implications.Neurogastroenterology and motility · 2023Article
- 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Chicago Classification (CC) used to define esophageal motility disorders in high-resolution manometry (HRM) has evolved over time. Our aim was to compare the frequency of motility disorders diagnosed with the last two versions (CCv3.0 and CCv4.0) and to evaluate symptoms severity according to the diagnoses.
methodsFrom June to December 2020, patients who underwent esophageal HRM with swallows in supine and sitting positions were included. HRM studies were retrospectively analyzed using CCv3.0 and CCv4.0. Symptoms severity and quality of life were assessed with validated standardized questionnaires. KEY
resultsAmong the 130 patients included (73 women, mean age 52 years), motility disorder diagnoses remained unchanged in 102 patients (78%) with both CC. The 3 patients with esophago-gastric junction outflow obstruction (EGJOO) with CCv3.0 were EGJOO, ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) and normal with CCv4.0. Twenty-four out of 63 IEM diagnosed with the CCv3.0 (38%) turned into normal motility with the CCv4.0. Whatever the CC used, brief esophageal dysphagia questionnaire score was significantly higher in patients with EGJ relaxation disorders compared to those with IEM (25 (0-34) vs 0 (0-19), p = 0.01). Gastro-Esophageal Reflux disease questionnaire (GERD-Q) score was higher in patients with IEM with both CC compared to those who turned to normal with CCv4.0. CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES: While motility disorders diagnoses remained mainly unchanged with both CC, IEM was less frequent with CCv4.0 compared to CCv3.0. The higher GERD-Q score in IEM patients with CCv4.0 suggests that CCv4.0 might identify IEM more likely associated with GERD.
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.