ArticleWorld journal of gastrointestinal surgery2023
Clinical features of acute esophageal mucosal lesions and reflux esophagitis Los Angeles classification grade D: A retrospective study.
Article in World journal of gastrointestinal surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Acute Esophageal Mucosal Lesion Mimicking Severe Reflux Esophagitis in Diabetic Ketoacidosis: A Diagnostic Pitfall.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Managing Acute Esophageal Necrosis Secondary to Diabetic Ketoacidosis in a Rural Centre: A Case Report and Proposed Algorithm for Management.Clinical case reports · 2025Article
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
backgroundAcute esophageal mucosal lesions (AEMLs) are an underrecognized and largely unexplored disease. Endoscopic findings are similar, and a higher percentage of AEML could be misdiagnosed as reflux esophagitis Los Angeles classification grade D (RE-D). These diseases could have different pathologies and require different treatments.
aimTo compare AEML and RE-D to confirm that the two diseases are different from each other and to clarify the clinical features of AEML.
methodsWe selected emergency endoscopic cases of upper gastrointestinal bleeding with circumferential esophageal mucosal injury and classified them into AEML and RE-D groups according to the mucosal injury's shape on the oral side. We examined patient background, blood sampling data, comorbidities at onset, endoscopic characteristics, and outcomes in each group.
resultsAmong the emergency cases, the AEML and RE-D groups had 105 (3.1%) and 48 (1.4%) cases, respectively. Multiple variables exhibited significantly different results, indicating that these two diseases are distinct. The clinical features of AEML consisted of more comorbidities [risk ratio (RR): 3.10; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.68-5.71;
conclusionAEML and RE-D were clearly distinct diseases with different clinical features. AEML may be more common than assumed, and the potential for its presence should be taken into account in cases of upper gastrointestinal bleeding with comorbidities.
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.