Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37602637›Full record

ArticleSaudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology Association2024

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.

Mohammed A Alzahrani, Mohammed A Alfahadi, Meshref A Alshehri, Abdulaziz H Alamri, Eman A Almahjani, Aishah M Alahmari, Abdullah A Al-Shahrani, Abdulaziz S Alshahrani, Ibrahim M Almanjahi, Abdullah M Alqarni

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Saudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology Association, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. The Saudi Gastroenterology Association consensus on the clinical care pathway for the diagnosis and treatment of GERD.Saudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology Association · 2024
    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.

Mohammed A AlzahraniDepartment of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, King Khalid University, Aseer Central Hospital, Abha, Saudi Arabia.
Mohammed A AlfahadiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Aseer Central Hospital, Abha, Saudi Arabia.
Meshref A AlshehriDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, King Fahad Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Abdulaziz H AlamriDepartment of Internal Medicine, Aseer Central Hospital, Abha, Saudi Arabia.
Eman A AlmahjaniDepartment of Internal Medicine, Aseer Central Hospital, Abha, Saudi Arabia.
Aishah M AlahmariDepartment of Internal Medicine, Aseer Central Hospital, Abha, Saudi Arabia.
Abdullah A Al-ShahraniDepartment of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, King Khalid University, Aseer Central Hospital, Abha, Saudi Arabia.
Abdulaziz S AlshahraniDepartment of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Najran University, Najran, Saudi Arabia.
Ibrahim M AlmanjahiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Aseer Central Hospital, Abha, Saudi Arabia.
Abdullah M AlqarniDepartment of Occupational Health, Aseer Central Hospital, Abha, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEsophageal motility disorders (EMDs) can significantly impact patients' quality of life. The Chicago Classification (CC) was developed as a robust framework to enable clinicians to better understand and classify the nature of motility disorders. Previous studies have primarily focused on the CC version 3.0 (CCv3.0), and data regarding the correlation between symptoms and CC version 4.0 (CCv4.0) in the Saudi Arabian population are lacking. This study aimed to assess the correlation between symptoms and CCv3.0 and CCv4.0 using high-resolution esophageal manometry (HRM) in Saudi Arabia, to evaluate the diagnostic performance of both classifications.

methodsA total of 182 patients presenting with esophageal symptoms were included in this study. HRM was performed to assess esophageal motility, and patients' reported symptoms were recorded. The association between HRM findings and symptomatic variables was analyzed using sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV).

resultsVariability was observed in the diagnostic performance of symptomatic variables for major EMDs. CCv4.0 demonstrated a higher sensitivity for dysphagia than CCv3.0; however, it exhibited lower sensitivity to atypical gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms. Noncardiac chest pain (NCCP) exhibited the highest specificity and PPV, whereas typical GERD symptoms showed lower specificity.

conclusionCCv4.0 demonstrated potential improvements in sensitivity for dysphagia, but lower sensitivity for atypical GERD symptoms, compared with CCv3.0. These insights provide guidance for clinicians in Saudi Arabia and contribute to understanding the diagnostic performance of CCv3.0 and CCv4.0.

Indexed as

Deglutition DisordersEsophageal Motility DisordersGastroesophageal RefluxHumansQuality of LifeSaudi Arabia

Identifiers

PMID37602637
PMCPMC10980293

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.