ArticleJournal of neurogastroenterology and motility2025
Long-term Prognosis and Prognostic Factors in Ineffective Esophageal Motility.
Article in Journal of neurogastroenterology and motility, 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.
- Article
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
Background/Aims: Ineffective esophageal motility is the most frequent disorder of esophageal peristalsis. Symptoms may include dysphagia, chest pain, and heartburn. Our aims are to evaluate the long-term prognosis and determine if provocative tests during high-resolution esophageal manometry could predict the prognosis. Methods: We retrospectively assessed high resolution manometries performed between 2015-2018 in adult patients. Symptoms were evaluated at baseline and at follow-up (median 39 months later) using the impact dysphagia questionnaire (IDQ-10), where a score ≥ 7 defined dysphagia, the gastroesophageal reflux disease questionnaire (GerdQ), where a score ≥ 9 defined symptoms of reflux disease and if the subject had chest pain ≥ once a week. Chicago classifications version 3.0 and 4.0 were used. The contractile reserve was assessed by identifying whether esophageal peristalsis normalized or not on solid bolus swallows and a rapid drink challenge was included. Results: Nine hundred and eighty investigations performed during the study period; 114 patients (11.6%) were identified with ineffective esophageal motility. The final study cohort consisted of 33 patients of which 42% had dysphagia at follow-up and 25% had chest pain at least once a week, 46% had reflux symptoms. Patients who normalized motility on solid bolus swallows reported less dysphagia upon follow-up ( Conclusions: Patients with ineffective esophageal motility continue to experience long-term esophageal symptoms at follow-up. Provocative tests seem to have the potential to partly predict the long-term prognosis of dysphagia.
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.