ReviewJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology2023
Beyond Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Eosinophils in Gastrointestinal Disease-New Insights, "New" Diseases.
Review in Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Eosinophilic and mastocytic gastrointestinal diseases: current knowledge and controversy in histopathologic diagnosis.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2026Review
- Practical concepts and strategies for early diagnosis and management of eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders in East-Asian children.Clinical and experimental pediatrics · 2025Article
- Remarkable increase in Interleukin-5 receptor expression beyond tissue eosinophils in inflammatory bowel disease.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- Intestinal permeability, food antigens and the microbiome: a multifaceted perspective.Frontiers in allergy · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Functional dyspepsia (FD) is a highly prevalent disorder. Upper endoscopy is normal, and according to the Rome IV criteria, there is no established pathology. Data accumulated over the last 15 years has challenged the notion FD is free of relevant pathology, and in particular, increased duodenal eosinophils have been observed. Intestinal eosinophils play important roles in microbial defence, immune regulation, tissue regeneration and remodelling, and maintaining tissue homeostasis and metabolism; degranulation of eosinophils releases toxic granule products (e.g., major basic protein, eosinophil-derived neurotoxin) which can damage nerves. Normal cut-offs for eosinophil infiltration into the duodenum histologically are less than five eosinophils per high power field (<25 per five high power fields). In clinical practice there is evidence that pathologically increased intestinal eosinophils may often be overlooked. In a meta-analysis duodenal eosinophils were significantly increased in FD although there was substantial heterogeneity; degranulation of duodenal eosinophils was also significantly higher in FD without significant heterogeneity. In addition, increased duodenal permeability, systemic immune activation, and an altered mucosa-associated duodenal microbiome have been identified that may help explain why symptoms arise, often occur after food with exposure to food antigens, and typically fluctuate. Several potentially reversible risk factors for FD have now been identified. We evaluate the current evidence linking duodenal microinflammation and immune activation with FD and disorders of gut-brain interactions that overlap with FD. We propose a two-hit disease model for eosinophilic functional dyspepsia (EoFD) with management implications.
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.