Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37934251›Full record

ArticleDysphagia2024

Chicago Classification Version 4.0 Improves Stratification of Ineffective Esophageal Motility Patients into Clinically Meaningful Subtypes: A Two-Center International Study.

Moshe Carmel, Daniel L Cohen, Basem Hijazi, Narges Azzam, Tawfik Khoury, Marta Pagliaro, Marcella Pesce, Amir Mari

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Dysphagia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Novel Technique to Diagnose Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease.The Korean journal of helicobacter and upper gastrointestinal research · 2024
    Review
  5. 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

8 authors.

Moshe CarmelAzrieli Faculty of Medicine, Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel. mocarmel@gmail.com.
Daniel L CohenThe Gonczarowski Family Institute of Gastroenterology and Liver Diseases, Shamir (Assaf Harofeh) Medical Center, Zerifin, Israel.
Basem HijaziAzrieli Faculty of Medicine, Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel.
Narges AzzamGastroenterology Department, Nazareth EMMS Hospital, Nazareth, Israel.
Tawfik KhouryAzrieli Faculty of Medicine, Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel.
Marta PagliaroDepartment of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, University of Naples "Federico II" Naples, 80131, Naples, Italy.
Marcella Pesce *Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, University of Naples "Federico II" Naples, 80131, Naples, Italy.
Amir Mari *Azrieli Faculty of Medicine, Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The 4th iteration of the Chicago Classification (CC v4.0) for esophageal motility disorders offers more restrictive criteria for the diagnosis of Ineffective Esophageal Motility (IEM) compared to version 3.0 (CC v3.0). In light of the updated criteria for IEM, we aimed to characterize and compare the patients who retained their IEM diagnosis to those who were reclassified as normal motility, and to evaluate the clinical impact of the newly introduced CC v4.0. We performed a retrospective case-control study. We included all individuals who underwent a high-resolution manometry (HRM) between 2020 and 2021 at two centers. Consecutive studies reported as IEM according to the CC v3.0 were reanalyzed according to the CC v4.0. We compared demographics, clinical, manometry, and pH-monitoring parameters. Out of 452 manometry studies, 154 (34%) met criteria for IEM as per the CC v3.0 (CC v3.0 IEM group). Of those, 39 (25%) studies were reclassified as normal studies according to the CC v4.0 (CC v4.0 normal group), while the remaining 115 studies (25% of the overall cohort) retained an IEM diagnosis (CC v4.0 IEM group). The CC v4.0 normal group had more recovered contractions during solid swallows (p = 0.01), less ineffective swallows (p = 0.04), and lower acid exposure time (p = 0.02) compared to the CC4.0 IEM group. Under CC v4.0 criteria, fewer patients are diagnosed with IEM. Those diagnosed with IEM had worse esophageal function and higher acid burden. Though further studies are needed to confirm these findings, our results indicate that CC v4.0 criteria restrict the IEM diagnosis to a more clinically meaningful population.

Indexed as

Esophageal Motility DisordersManometryAdultAgedCase-Control StudiesEsophageal pH MonitoringEsophagusFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesChicago classificationEsophageal hypomotilityGastroesophageal refluxHigh-resolution manometryIneffective esophageal motility

Identifiers

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.