ArticleSurgical endoscopy2023
Quantifying the subjective: length-to-height ratio characterizes achalasia esophageal tortuosity.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Modern treatment for achalasia: endoscopic and surgical therapies.The British journal of surgery · 2026Review
- Beyond visualizing the bird beak: esophagram, timed barium esophagram and manometry in achalasia and its 3 subtypes.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Review
- Esophageal tortuosity in achalasia: increased length-to-height ratio predicts inferior symptom relief and esophageal emptying following myotomy.Surgical endoscopy · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEsophageal morphology in achalasia is thought to affect outcomes, with "end-stage" sigmoidal morphology faring poorly; however, evaluation of morphology's role in outcomes has been limited by lack of objective characterization. Hence, the goals of this study were twofold: characterize the variability of timed barium esophagram (TBE) interpretation and evaluate an objective classification of TBE tortuosity: length-to-height ratio (LHR). We hypothesized that the esophagus must elongate to become sigmoidal such that sigmoidal morphology would demonstrate a larger LHR.
methodsNinety pre-operative TBEs were selected from an institutional database. Esophageal morphology was categorized as straight, intermediate, or sigmoidal. Esophageal length was measured by a mid-lumen line from the aortic knob to the esophagogastric junction on TBE; height was measured vertically from the aortic knob to the level of the esophagogastric junction. The length divided by the height generated the LHR. Descriptive statistics and frequency of expert agreement were calculated. Median LHR was compared between consensus morphologies. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) determined the optimal LHR for sigmoidal vs non-sigmoidal characterization.
resultsFrom a total of 90 pre-operative TBEs, expert consensus morphology was reached in 56 (62.2%) cases. Pairs of experts agreed on morphology in 62-74% of TBEs, with all three experts agreeing on 46.7-48.9% of cases. Median LHR between expert consensus morphologies was 1.03, 1.09, and 1.24 for straight, intermediate, and sigmoidal morphologies, respectively (p < 0.001). ROC demonstrated that an LHR cutoff of 1.13 was 100% sensitive and 95% specific (AUC 0.99) for ruling out sigmoidal morphology.
conclusionThese findings confirm our anecdotal experience that subjective morphology interpretation is variable, even between experts at a high-volume center. LHR provides an objective method for classification, allowing us to overcome the limitations of inter-observer variability, thus paving the way for future study of the role of morphology in achalasia outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37563341What 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.