ArticleJournal of neurogastroenterology and motility2024
Interpretation of Impedance Data on High-resolution Impedance Manometry Studies-A Worldwide Survey.
Article in Journal of 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.
- The Need for Updated Classification of Esophageal Motility Disorders Using High-resolution Impedance Manometry.Journal of neurogastroenterology and motility · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/Aims: Esophageal manometry is the gold standard for esophageal motility evaluation. High-resolution esophageal manometry with impedance (HRIM) allows concurrent assessment of bolus transit and manometry. Inconsistencies between concomitant impedance and manometry data pose a clinical dilemma and has not yet been addressed. We aim to assess interpretation trends of HRIM data among gastroenterologists worldwide. Methods: A cross-sectional study using an anonymous survey was conducted among gastroenterologists worldwide. Statistical analysis was performed to compare responses between providers. Results: We received responses from 107 gastroenterologists (26 countries). Most were adult providers (69, 64.5%), and most (77, 72.0%) had > 5 years of experience. Impedance was found to be helpful by 83 (77.6%) participants, but over 30% reported inconsistencies between impedance and manometry data. With incomplete bolus clearance and normal manometry 41 (38.7%) recommended observation, 41 (38.7%) recommended 24-hours pH-impedance, and 16 (15.1%) recommended prokinetics. With abnormal manometry and complete bolus clearance, 60 (57.1%) recommended observation while 18 (17.1%) recommended 24-hours pH impedance and 15 (14.3%) recommended prokinetics. A significant difference was found between providers from different continents in treating cases with discrepancy between impedance and manometry findings ( Conclusions: There is no consensus on interpreting HRIM data. Providers' approaches to studies with inconsistencies between manometry and impedance data vary. There is an unmet need for guidelines on interpreting impedance data in HRIM studies.
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.