ArticleEsophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society2025
Clinical characteristics of patients with eosinophilic esophagitis and eosinophilic esophageal myositis based on esophageal motility.
Article in Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society, 2025. 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.
- Eosinophilic esophageal myositis: a comparative study of distinguishing features, diagnostic challenges, and therapeutic insights.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) presents with various esophageal motility disorders, and some cases of hypercontractile esophagus (HE) are associated with eosinophilic esophageal myositis (EoEM). This study aimed to compare the clinical characteristics of patients with EoE and EoEM according to their esophageal motility.
methodsThe 28 patients with EoE and 2 patients with EoEM were divided into three groups based on esophageal motility: normal motility group, hypomotility group, and spastic contraction group. The clinical characteristics of the three groups were retrospectively compared.
resultsAmong the 28 patients with EoE, there were 15 with normal esophageal motility, 9 with hypomotility (2 with absent contractility, 7 with ineffective esophageal motility), and 4 with spastic contractions (1 with type III achalasia, 1 with HE, 2 with unclassifiable multipeak contractions). The two patients with EoEM had HE. Most patients in the normal and hypomotility groups had typical endoscopic findings of EoE, whereas these typical findings were less common in the spastic contraction group (P < 0.001). Four of the five patients with esophageal stricture were in the hypomotility group (P = 0.036). The therapy method significantly differed between the three groups: the normal group had more patients that responded to a proton pump inhibitor or potassium-competitive acid blocker, the hypomotility group had more patients that responded to steroids, and the spastic contraction group contained two patients treated with per-oral endoscopic myotomy (P = 0.021).
conclusionsThe endoscopic findings and therapy methods differ between patients with EoE and EoEM based on the esophageal motility.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39438425What 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.