Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36948611›Full record

SynthesisJournal of smooth muscle research = Nihon Heikatsukin Gakkai kikanshi2023

Clinical characteristics and manometric findings of esophageal achalasia-a systematic review regarding differences among three subtypes.

Ryo Katsumata, Noriaki Manabe, Hiroyuki Sakae, Kenta Hamada, Maki Ayaki, Takahisa Murao, Minoru Fujita, Tomoari Kamada, Hirofumi Kawamoto, Ken Haruma

Open access · diamondAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of smooth muscle research = Nihon Heikatsukin Gakkai kikanshi, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Ryo KatsumataDepartment of Health Care Medicine, Kawasaki Medical School, 577 Matsushima, Kurashiki city, Okayama 701-0192, Japan.
Noriaki ManabeDivision of Endoscopy and Ultrasonography, Department of Clinical Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Kawasaki Medical School, 577 Matsushima, Kurashiki city, Okayama 701-0192, Japan.
Hiroyuki SakaeDepartment of Internal Medicine, Tsuyama Chuo Hospital, 1756 Kawasaki, Tsuyama, Okayama 708-0841, Japan.
Kenta HamadaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Okayama University Hospital, 2-5-1 Shikata-cho, Kitaku, Okayama 700-8558, Japan.
Maki AyakiDivision of Endoscopy and Ultrasonography, Department of Clinical Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Kawasaki Medical School, 577 Matsushima, Kurashiki city, Okayama 701-0192, Japan.
Takahisa MuraoDepartment of Health Care Medicine, Kawasaki Medical School, 577 Matsushima, Kurashiki city, Okayama 701-0192, Japan.
Minoru FujitaDivision of Endoscopy and Ultrasonography, Department of Clinical Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Kawasaki Medical School, 577 Matsushima, Kurashiki city, Okayama 701-0192, Japan.
Tomoari KamadaDepartment of Health Care Medicine, Kawasaki Medical School, 577 Matsushima, Kurashiki city, Okayama 701-0192, Japan.
Hirofumi KawamotoDepartment of General Internal Medicine 2, Kawasaki Medical School, 577 Matsushima, Kurashiki city, Okayama 701-0192, Japan.
Ken HarumaDepartment of General Internal Medicine 2, Kawasaki Medical School, 577 Matsushima, Kurashiki city, Okayama 701-0192, Japan.
Kawasaki Medical School · JPOkayama University Hospital · JPTsuyama Chuo Hospital · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Esophageal achalasia is classified into three subtypes according to manometric findings. Since several factors, including clinical characteristics and treatment response, have been reported to differ among the subtypes, the underlying pathogenesis may also differ. However, a comprehensive understanding regarding the differences is still lacking. We therefore performed a systematic review of the differences among the three subtypes of achalasia to clarify the current level of comprehension. In terms of clinical features, type III, which is the least frequently diagnosed of the three subtypes, showed the oldest age and most severe symptoms, such as chest pain. In contrast, type I showed a higher prevalence of lung complications, and type II showed weight loss more frequently than the other types. Histopathologically, type I showed a high loss of ganglion cells in esophagus, and on a molecular basis, type III had elevated serum pro-inflammatory cytokine levels. In addition to peristalsis and the lower esophageal sphincter (LES) function, the upper esophageal sphincter (UES) function of achalasia has attracted attention, as an impaired UES function is associated with severe aspiration pneumonia, a fatal complication of achalasia. Previous studies have indicated that type II shows a higher UES pressure than the other subtypes, while an earlier decline in the UES function has been confirmed in type I. Differences in the treatment response are also crucial for managing achalasia patients. A number of studies have reported better responses in type II cases and less favorable responses in type III cases to pneumatic dilatation. These differences help shed light on the pathogenesis of achalasia and support its clinical management according to the subtype.

Indexed as

Esophageal AchalasiaChest PainEsophageal Sphincter, LowerEsophageal Sphincter, UpperHumansManometryachalasiahigh-resolution manometryperoral endoscopic myotomyupper esophageal sphincter

Identifiers

PMID36948611
PMCPMC10036217
OpenAlexW4328008573

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.