Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37803186›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2024

Endoscopic impedance planimetry versus high-resolution manometry (HRM) for pre-operative motility evaluation in anti-reflux surgery.

Theresa N Wang, Jennifer Underhill, Robert Tamer, Kyle A Perry, Kelly R Haisley

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Theresa N WangDepartment of Surgery, Center for Minimally Invasive Surgery, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA. theresanwang@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-6512-4341
Jennifer UnderhillDepartment of Surgery, Center for Minimally Invasive Surgery, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.
Robert TamerDepartment of Surgery, Center for Surgical Health Assessment, Research and Policy, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.
Kyle A PerryDepartment of Surgery, Center for Minimally Invasive Surgery, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.
Kelly R HaisleyDepartment of Surgery, Center for Minimally Invasive Surgery, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.
The Ohio State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPre-operative evaluation of patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) includes assessment of esophageal motility. High-resolution manometry (HRM) is the gold standard; endoscopic impedance planimetry (IP) with Endoflip 2.0 is increasingly utilized in esophageal disorders of motility. We hypothesized that normal IP motility would correlate with normal HRM motility and tested this in a prospective cohort study.

methodsPatients presenting for surgical evaluation of GERD between 9/2020 and 10/2021 were prospectively enrolled under an IRB-approved protocol. Patients with prior esophageal/gastric surgery, known motility disorders, or large paraesophageal hernias were excluded. All underwent HRM and IP, with normal motility defined by Chicago 3.0 classification for HRM and the presence of repetitive antegrade contractions for IP. Logistic regression and t test were used to analyze the data; p value < 0.05 was considered significant.

resultsOf 63 patients enrolled, 48 completed both IP and HRM testing. The cohort was 50% male with a median age of 52.5 [42.0, 66.0] years, mostly ASA class 1-2 (75.1%, n = 36) and had an average BMI of 31.4 ± 6.3 kg/m

conclusionEsophageal motility testing with Endoflip 2.0 is well tolerated by patients. The low specificity (50%), poor negative predictive value (27.8%), and lack of statistically significant concordance between IP and HRM raises concern for the reliability of this test as a stand-alone replacement for HRM in the pre-operative evaluation for GERD.

Indexed as

Esophageal Motility DisordersGastroesophageal RefluxElectric ImpedanceFemaleHumansMaleManometryProspective StudiesReproducibility of ResultsEndoflipEsophageal motilityGERDHigh-resolution manometryImpedance planimetry

Identifiers

PMID37803186
OpenAlexW4387397144

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.