ArticleOTO open
Comparison of Esophageal Dysmotility Diagnostic Studies in Head and Neck Cancer Survivors With Dysphagia.
Article in OTO open. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Objective: This study aims to characterize the relationship of esophageal dysmotility on modified barium swallow (MBS) and esophagram studies with high-resolution manometry (HRM), the gold standard of esophageal dysmotility diagnosis, in head and neck cancer (HNC) survivors with dysphagia. Study Design: Retrospective diagnostic accuracy study. Setting: Specialty dysphagia clinic at a tertiary care center. Methods: A retrospective analysis of 30 patients treated for dysphagia between 2020 and 2023 was conducted. Inclusion criteria required HNC survivors aged 18 years or older who were diagnosed with dysphagia, treated in a HNC dysphagia clinic, and completed at least one HRM study. Data were collected on patient demographics, cancer history, MBS, esophagram, and HRM studies. MBS and esophagram results were reviewed for evidence of esophageal dysmotility. HRM studies were assessed with the Chicago Classification Version 4.0. Data were summarized and analyzed using Results: Of the 30 patients reviewed, 20 (67%) showed dysmotility on HRM, 15 (50.0%) completed MBS only, 2 (6.7%) completed esophagram only, and 13 (43.3%) completed both MBS and esophagram. MBS and esophagram accurately identified dysmotility in 66.7% and 76.9% of patients with confirmed dysmotility on HRM, respectively. Conclusion: Esophageal dysmotility is an understudied comorbidity of dysphagia in the HNC survivor population. Our study suggests that MBS and esophagram have limited predictive value in the assessment of dysmotility in HNC survivors with dysphagia. Thus, future studies should aim to better understand the relationship between other aspects of post-HNC dysphagia and esophageal dysmotility.
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.