ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2025
Gastroenterology Fellow Knowledge of Esophageal Motility and Manometry: Assessment and Improvement Initiative at an Academic Center.
Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 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.
- Achalasia: Physician Practices and Knowledge in Türkiye.The Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is scarce information on the state of general gastrointestinal (GI) fellow knowledge of esophageal motility and the interpretation skills of esophageal high-resolution manometry (HRM).
aimThis study aimed to assess GI fellow knowledge of esophageal motility and manometry interpretation.
methodsA 6-month educational program consisting of eight didactic sessions in the form of a weekly educational email, three didactic conferences, and handouts pertaining to the Chicago Classification (v3.0) of esophageal HRM was conducted. Both pre- and post-intervention surveys were collected using SurveyMonkey®. Five questions assessed fellows' knowledge of esophageal motility and manometry, and two questions examined their self-assessment of knowledge and confidence in managing esophageal motility disorders (EMDs). Descriptive statistics and Student's t test were used for the analysis.
resultsTen GI fellows (four first-year, five second-year, and one third-year) from a single academic institution participated in the intervention. Fellows showed a trend for better knowledge of the clinical aspects of esophageal motility over HRM interpretation (P value 0.09). On a scale of 1-5, with 5 being the highest, fellows' self-assessment of esophageal motility knowledge pre-intervention averaged 1.8 (SD 0.78) and post-intervention 2.9 (SD 0.99); P value 0.007. Fellows' confidence in managing EMDs pre-intervention averaged 1.7 (SD 0.66) and post-intervention 2.8 (SD 0.91); P value 0.04. Subgroup analyses, including fellows' self-assessment of knowledge, and fellows' confidence in managing EMDs, maintained statistically significance for level of training.
conclusionGI fellow knowledge of esophageal motility and manometry interpretation, as well as confidence in managing EMDs, improved significantly after a 6-month formal educational program.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39953187What 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.