ArticleDysphagia2024
Integrated Relaxation Pressure and Its Diagnostic Ability May Vary According to the Conditions Used for HREM Recording.
Article in Dysphagia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development of a diagnostic model for esophageal achalasia assessed by esophageal high-resolution manometry using artificial intelligence.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2026Article
- Exploration of Diagnostic Value of Chicago Classification Version 4.0: Focusing on Rapid Drink Challenge.Journal of neurogastroenterology and motility · 2024Article
- Assessment of the Diagnostic Yield of Multiple Rapid Swallows in Symptomatic Patients with Normal High-Resolution Esophageal Manometry.GE Portuguese journal of gastroenterologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Integrated Residual Pressure (IRP) measured under conditions alternative to supine single swallows may provide clinically useful information regarding EGJ relaxation. This study aimed to compare IRP values obtained under different situations and explore their potential clinical utility. We analyzed and compared the values of IRP obtained from healthy volunteers and patients with suspected achalasia during supine single swallows (Ssup-IRP), sitting single swallows (Ssit-IRP), supine multiple rapid swallows (Msup-IRP), and sitting multiple rapid swallows (Msit-IRP). We analyzed the HREM recordings of 40 healthy volunteers and 53 patients with suspected achalasia. The four metrics were significantly different from each other in healthy volunteers (Ssup-IRP > Msup-IRP > Ssit-IRP > Msit-IRP) and their corresponding 95th percentiles were substantially distinct (Ssup-IRP: 25.3 mmHg, Ssit-IRP: 20.9 mmHg, Msup-IRP: 15.9 mmHg, and Msit-IRP: 11.9 mm Hg, respectively). Complete agreement among the four metrics in predicting abnormal IRP was found in 39 of the 47 patients with suspected achalasia who completed the protocol. Optimal cutoffs derived from ROC curve analysis demonstrated ≥ 0.95 specificities for detection of impaired EGJ relaxation among patients with suspected achalasia. Among the eight patients with suspected achalasia with normal Ssup-IRP, five demonstrated abnormal Msit-IRP and four abnormal Ssit-IRP. Significant differences of IRP exist depending on the measurement situation, indicating that correct interpretation of IRP values requires specific cutoffs for each situation.The sensitivities of Ssit-IRP and Msit-IRP in detecting defective EGJ relaxation appear to be slightly higher than that of Ssup-IRP.
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.