ArticleJournal of gastroenterology2024
Novel scale for evaluating the therapeutic efficacy of per-oral endoscopic myotomy in achalasia.
Article in Journal of gastroenterology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Symptom duration is associated with esophageal remodeling in achalasia treated by peroral endoscopic myotomy.Scientific reports · 2026Observational
- Clinical course of chest pain associated with esophageal motility disorders following peroral endoscopic myotomy.Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 2026Article
- Assessing Treatment Outcomes in Achalasia Using 4-Dimensional High-resolution Impedance Manometry.Journal of neurogastroenterology and motility · 2025Article
- Persistent body-weight change on achalasia and peroral endoscopic myotomy: a multicenter cohort study.Journal of gastroenterology · 2025Observational
- Effectiveness and safety of full-thickness versus circular muscle myotomy in peroral endoscopic myotomy: a retrospective single-center analysis of 152 patients.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSymptom scales for achalasia after per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) are lacking. This study aimed to propose a new scale based on the conventional Eckardt score (c-ES) and evaluate persistent symptoms that impair patients' quality of life (QOL) post-POEM.
methodsDysphagia, regurgitation, and chest pain frequencies were assessed using a 6-point scale modified-ES (m-ES) after POEM, with "occasional" symptoms on the c-ES further subdivided into three-period categories on m-ES. Symptom severity was further evaluated using a 5-point scale ranging from 1 to 5 points, with a score ≥ 3 points defined as persistent symptoms impairing QOL. We analyzed the correlation between the m-ES and severity score, diagnostic performance of the m-ES for persistent symptoms, and overlaps between each residual symptom.
resultsOverall, 536 patients (median follow-up period, 2.9 years) post-POEM were included in this multicenter study. Significant correlations were observed between the m-ES and severity scores for dysphagia (r = 0.67, p < 0.01), regurgitation (r = 0.73, p < 0.01), and chest pain (r = 0.85, p < 0.01). Twenty-six patients (4.9%) had persistent symptoms post-POEM, and 23 of them had m-ES-specific symptom frequency ≥ once a month, which was determined as the optimal frequency threshold for screening persistent symptoms. The total m-ES predicted persistent symptoms more accurately than the total c-ES (area under the curve: 0.95 vs. 0.79, p < 0.01). Furthermore, dysphagia and chest pain were the major residual symptoms post-POEM covering 91.4% of regurgitation.
conclusionsThe new post-POEM scale successfully evaluated the QOL-based patient symptom severities. Our study implied the possibility of a simpler scale using residual dysphagia and chest pain.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38811423What 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.