Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37417259›Full record

ArticleJournal of neurogastroenterology and motility2023

Comparison of Diagnosis of Esophageal Motility Disorders by Chicago Classification Versions 3.0 and 4.0.

Jin Hee Noh, Kee Wook Jung, In Ja Yoon, Hee Kyong Na, Ji Yong Ahn, Jeong Hoon Lee, Do Hoon Kim, Kee Don Choi, Ho June Song, Gin Hyug Lee and 1 more

Open access · diamondAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neurogastroenterology and motility, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. [Recent Advances in Esophageal Function Testing for Functional Esophageal Disorders].The Korean journal of gastroenterology = Taehan Sohwagi Hakhoe chi · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jin Hee NohDepartment of Gastroenterology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Kee Wook JungDepartment of Gastroenterology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
In Ja YoonDepartment of Gastroenterology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Hee Kyong NaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Ji Yong AhnDepartment of Gastroenterology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Jeong Hoon LeeDepartment of Gastroenterology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Do Hoon KimDepartment of Gastroenterology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Kee Don ChoiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Ho June SongDepartment of Gastroenterology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Gin Hyug LeeDepartment of Gastroenterology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Hwoon-Yong JungDepartment of Gastroenterology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Ulsan College · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background/Aims: We aim to investigate the diagnostic accuracy and differences between Chicago classification version 3.0 (CC v3.0) and 4.0 (CC v4.0). Methods: Patients who underwent high-resolution esophageal manometry (HRM) for suspected esophageal motility disorders were prospectively recruited between May 2020 and February 2021. The protocol of HRM studies included additional positional change and provocative testing designed by CC v4.0. Results: Two hundred forty-four patients were included. The median age was 59 (interquartile range, 45-66) years, and 46.7% were males. Of these, 53.3% (n = 130) and 61.9% (n = 151) were categorized as normalcy by CC v3.0 and CC v4.0, respectively. The 15 patients diagnosed of esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction (EGJOO) by CC v3.0 was changed to normalcy by position (n = 2) and symptom (n = 13) by CC v4.0. In seven patients, the ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) diagnosis by CC v3.0 was changed to normalcy by CC v4.0. The diagnostic rate of achalasia increased from 11.1% (n = 27) to 13.9% (n = 34) by CC v4.0. Of patients diagnosed IEM by CC v3.0, 4 was changed to achalasia based on the functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) results by CC v4.0. Three patients (2 with absent contractility and 1 with IEM in CC v3.0) were newly diagnosed with achalasia using a provocative test and barium esophagography by CC v4.0. Conclusions: CC v4.0 is more rigorous than CC v3.0 for the diagnosis of EGJOO and IEM and diagnoses achalasia more accurately by using provocative tests and FLIP. Further studies on the treatment outcomes following diagnosis with CC v4.0 are needed.

Indexed as

AchalasiaChicago classificationEsophagogastric junction outflow obstructionHigh-resolution manometryIneffective esophageal motility

Identifiers

PMID37417259
PMCPMC10334199
OpenAlexW4383482896

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.