ArticleJGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology2025
Optimizing achalasia diagnosis in the era of high-resolution manometry: A Pakistani perspective.
Article in JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnostic Performance and Reproducibility of the CARS Endoscopic Score in Achalasia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Neurogastroenterology and motility · 2026Pooled it
- Impact of educational pamphlet in achalasia care: education as therapy among Pakistani patients.Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 2026Article
- Editorial: The Role of Esophageal Manometry in Diagnosing Achalasia and Esophageal Motility Disorders: Challenges and Advances.JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: High-resolution manometry (HRM) is a gold standard for diagnosing achalasia and identification of its subtypes, but data regarding its correlation with clinical, endoscopic, and radiological features in low-resource settings like Pakistan are limited. This study aims to identify and compare manometric parameters with other diagnostic parameters among achalasia subtypes in Pakistani population. Methodology: A retrospective analysis of clinical, endoscopic, and radiological features of 381 patients who underwent HRM at Center for Liver and Digestive Diseases, Holy Family Hospital, Rawalpindi, Pakistan, from December 2015 to February 2024 was performed. Based on the HRM criterion, 213 patients were identified and categorized into subtypes: 132 cases for type I and 64 and 17 for type II and III, respectively. Results: Patient demographics were similar across subtypes except for sex (male-dominant in types I and II, female-dominant in type III). Symptom duration was longest in type III (8 years vs. 4.1 years). Almost all patients had dysphagia; 83% reported regurgitation/weight loss, 71% chest pain, and 64% vomiting. The endoscopy results were normal in 40% of patients, and barium swallow was inconclusive in just 13% of achalasia patients. Type III exhibited the highest EGJ relaxation pressure and lowest LES pressure. Notably, all subtypes displayed elevated IRP, with type I showing highest value. Conclusion: This study identified type I achalasia as the most prevalent subtype. While barium swallow and endoscopy showed limited diagnostic accuracy, HRM confirmed subtypes in all patients. Despite challenges with GERD-like symptoms and inconclusive findings, further research is warranted to investigate specific clinical features of each subtype, potentially attributing to personalized treatment strategies.
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.