ArticleNeurogastroenterology and motility2025
Validation of Functional Lumen Imaging Probe Panometry Esophageal Motility Classification Version 2.0: A Study of 805 Patients.
Article in Neurogastroenterology and motility, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- SAGES-EAES systematic review and meta-analysis for the use of FLIP/impedance planimetry in the surgical work-up and management of GERD, achalasia, and gastroparesis.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Pooled it
- SAGES-EAES clinical practice guidelines for the use of FLIP/impedance planimetry in the surgical work-up and management of GERD, achalasia, and gastroparesis.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Guideline
- Letter to the Editor Concerning: Methodological Limitations in the Assessment of Novice Rater Competency for FLIP Panometry.Neurogastroenterology and motility · 2026Article
- Machine Learning Clustering Identifies Achalasia-Spectrum Phenotypes in Distal Esophageal Spasm.Journal of neurogastroenterology and motility · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFunctional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) panometry assesses esophageal motility during sedated endoscopy. Recently, the FLIP panometry motility classification was refined (v2.0) in the Dallas Consensus. This study aimed to characterize esophageal motility using the FLIP v2.0 classification scheme and compare its classifications with those of FLIP v1.0 and high-resolution manometry (HRM) diagnoses on the basis of Chicago Classification v4.0 (CCv4.0).
methods805 adult patients who completed both FLIP and HRM at two tertiary esophageal centers were included; 704 with conclusive CCv4.0 diagnoses comprised the primary analysis, and 101 with inconclusive CCv4.0 diagnoses were also described. Esophagogastric junction (EGJ) opening and contractile response (CR) patterns were evaluated using 16-cm FLIP during sedated endoscopy, with motility classifications defined by FLIP v1.0 and v2.0 criteria. HRM was classified per CCv4.0.
resultsIn the primary analysis, among the 137 (19%) patients with normal motility on FLIP panometry, 93% had normal motility or ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) on HRM. Normal motility on FLIP panometry had a 99% negative predictive value for disorders of EGJ outflow. Among the 163 (23%) patients with non-spastic obstruction (defined by reduced EGJ opening and absent/diminished CR) on FLIP panometry, 91% had a conclusive disorder of EGJ outflow on HRM. Among the 37 patients with type III achalasia on HRM, 16 (43%) were classified as spastic obstruction on FLIP panometry.
conclusionsFLIP panometry v2.0 categorized esophageal motility in a manner that frequently paralleled the HRM/CCv4.0 diagnoses. FLIP panometry offers a well-tolerated approach that complements, or may be an alternative to, HRM for diagnosing esophageal motility disorders.
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.