ArticleCureus2025
Oesophageal Physiology Clinical Practice: A Case Study and Literature Review.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinical oesophageal physiology is continually evolving through technological advancements, developing hybrid metrics for advanced clinical measurements, and continuously refining the diagnostic guidelines. This has currently placed oesophageal physiology investigation in specialist clinical centres and is excluded from the standard upper gastrointestinal diagnostic testing conducted in general hospitals. Therefore, patients and clinicians in a general hospital have reduced accessibility to oesophageal physiology tests, and patient referrals to specialist centres are only made when all standard oesophageal diagnostic tests are normal or cannot explain the patient's symptoms. As oesophageal physiology is not widely performed in healthcare centres, practitioners in general hospitals may not always think of the oesophageal physiology diagnostic test in their line of investigations. This clinical case study presents a patient under the care of a general hospital who required oesophageal physiology surveillance to see the development of achalasia. The oesophageal physiology primary study diagnosed ineffective oesophageal motility in the absence of reflux disease. The study did, however, capture features that raised suspicion of achalasia developing on high-resolution manometry. The current clinical guidelines do not identify the pre-achalasia state and make no recommendation or set the clinical pathway for repeating the oesophageal physiology or considering oesophageal physiology surveillance. In unwrapping the clinical features for the achalasia development, this case study not only justifies the referral for oesophageal physiology surveillance, but it also offers a learning platform to interpret results beyond the technical finding, addresses pitfalls in the diagnostic guidelines, and introduces useful supplementary tests that can be implemented into routine practice to uncover the correct diagnosis and exclude achalasia mimicking conditions.
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.