ArticleDysphagia2024
Risk Factors Associated with Unsuccessful High-Resolution Manometry.
Article in Dysphagia, 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.
- Patient-centered gastrointestinal function assessment technologies: a paradigm shift from traditional approaches to non-invasive innovations.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
High-resolution manometry (HRM) is used to evaluate the esophageal motor function. Unfortunately, there are times when testing cannot be performed accurately. Our study aimed to quantify the occurrence of failed HRM and identify the associated risk factors. HRM tests were retrospectively collected between September 2021 and August 2022. HRM reports that could not be interpreted based on standard HRM protocol as per Chicago guidelines were classified as failed tests. Information reviewed included testing indications, patient demographics, previous medical/symptom history, and follow-up testing for failed HRM. We then compared patients with successful vs. unsuccessful HRM based on our pre-specified factors. 152 HRM tests were performed, of which 28 tests (18%) were unsuccessful. Factors associated with failed manometry included a history of nausea/vomiting, dyspepsia, and achalasia. Patients who were unable to tolerate the probe during testing were more likely to have a history of dyspepsia (OR 20.3, p = < 0.001) and/or nausea/vomiting (OR 13.8, p = < 0.001). A history of achalasia was found to have an odds ratio of 13.2 when examining failure because of curling of the manometry catheter (p = 0.012). All seven patients who had repeat HRM with endoscopic placement were successful in obtaining diagnostic information. There are two groups that have risk factors for unsuccessful HRM testing. A history of nausea/vomiting and dyspepsia symptoms were associated with being unable to tolerate the manometry probe. The second group comprises patients with a history of achalasia in whom probe curling is more common. Future research targeting these risk factors may minimize diagnostic and treatment delays.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38453746What 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.