ArticleThe Korean journal of internal medicine2024
Usefulness of nasal cavity evaluation before high-resolution esophageal manometry in high-risk patients.
Article in The Korean journal of internal medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsA catheter is inserted through the nasal cavity during high-resolution esophageal manometry (HRM), which may cause adverse events such as pain or epistaxis. Despite these possible safety considerations, studies on this subject are very limited. We aimed to investigate the usefulness of nasal cavity evaluation before HRM to reduce the risk of adverse events and test failure.
methodsPatients who underwent HRM after consultation with the ear-nose-throat department for nasal evaluation were retrospectively enrolled between December 2021 and May 2022. The included patients had a previous history of sinonasal disease or surgery or had subjective nasal discomfort. All patients answered the Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22) questionnaire, and subjective nasal discomfort was scored using a visual analog scale. Nasal endoscopy and acoustic rhinometry were performed for disease evaluation and volumetric assessment.
resultsThe analysis included 22 patients with a mean age of 58.9 years. The mean SNOT-22 score was 24.2, and 16 patients (72.7%) complained of subjective nasal obstruction. The HRM catheter was successfully inserted in 20 patients (90.9%), without any significant adverse events. The objective measurement outcomes of acoustic rhinometry and sinus endoscopy did not always correspond to subjective symptoms. Narrowed nasal airways unresponsive to decongestants were observed in two patients with failed catheter insertion.
conclusionTo reduce the risk of adverse events and test failure during HRM, a site-specific questionnaire to evaluate nasal obstruction might be helpful. When nasal obstruction is suspected, objective nasal cavity evaluation could be recommended for the safe and successful performance of HRM.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.