ArticleNeurogastroenterology and motility2024
The utility of balloon-based and standard impedance technology to diagnose esophageal mucosal diseases in children.
Article in Neurogastroenterology and motility, 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.
- Minimally Invasive Approaches to Diagnose and Monitor Eosinophilic GI Diseases.Current allergy and asthma reports · 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
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundStandard impedance catheters and balloon-based mucosal impedance catheters (BBMI) have been used to assess mucosal integrity and diagnose mucosal diseases. The goal of this study was to determine the age-related technical issues associated with mucosal balloon inflation, validate the BBMI measurement against a standard impedance probe, and compare software-generated diagnoses to histologic diagnoses.
methodsWe prospectively recruited patients undergoing endoscopy, during which patients underwent standard mucosal impedance catheters and BBMI measurements. Measurements were compared to each other, to the histologic diagnoses, and to the number of eosinophils per high power field. We then compared the patients' diagnosis to that assigned by the BBMI software. KEY
resultsSixty-two patients (mean age: 62 ± 62 months) were recruited, including non-GERD (N = 40), GERD (N = 15), and EoE (N = 7) patients. There were significant differences between the impedance values measured by the two technologies at each esophageal height (p < 0.003). There were significant correlations between the mean impedance values taken by the two catheters in the distal (r CONCLUSION AND INFERENCES: While there was significant variability in impedance values between technologies within patients, regional measurements were consistent across catheters. Automated analyses lacked the sensitivity to diagnose inflammatory disorders.
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.