ArticleNeurogastroenterology and motility2026
Comparison of Achalasia Classification Schemes to Predict Treatment Outcomes.
Article in Neurogastroenterology and motility, 2026. 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.
- Comparison of Achalasia Classification Schemes to Predict Treatment Outcomes.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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsAchalasia classifications, such as the Chicago Classification subtypes based on high-resolution manometry (HRM) and Japanese Esophageal Society (JES), Italian, or Brazilian classifications based on esophagram, have been described. We aimed to compare these schemes for prediction of achalasia treatment outcomes.
methods222 adult patients with achalasia that completed pretreatment HRM and esophagram before and after treatment were included. Pretreatment HRM achalasia subtypes were determined by the Chicago Classification and JES; Italian and Brazilian classifications were defined by pretreatment esophagram. Post-treatment outcomes were defined using the Eckardt symptom score (good outcome < 4) or timed barium esophagram (TBE; good outcome 5-min column height < 5 cm).
resultsThe Chicago Classification was a significant predictor of symptomatic outcome (p = 0.003-0.007), whereas JES, Italian, and Brazilian schemes were not. All four classifications were significant predictors of radiographic outcome, with JES demonstrating the best model fit as identified by lowest Akaike information criteria (AIC). Type III achalasia (Chicago Classification) patients had the lowest rates of good symptomatic outcomes despite treatment primarily with POEM, whereas advanced esophagram stages (JES-C, Italian IV, Brazilian 2-3) were associated with poorer radiographic outcomes.
conclusionsBoth HRM- and esophagram-based classification schemes predict achalasia treatment outcomes, though with different strengths. While treatment choice may impact outcomes, HRM best predicted symptomatic outcomes, while esophagram classifications better predicted objective radiographic outcomes. Utilizing both modalities may enhance prognostication of outcomes in achalasia.
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.