ArticleNeurogastroenterology and motility2026
Addressing Gaps in the Chicago Classification Version 4.0: Defining an Optimal Intrabolus Pressure Measurement on Esophageal Manometry.
Article in Neurogastroenterology and motility, 2026. 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
Abstract
backgroundIntrabolus pressure (IBP) reflects the pressure within the esophageal lumen during bolus transit and serves as a physiologic marker of outflow resistance at the esophagogastric junction (EGJ). The lack of a standardized or validated method to measure IBP is a critical limitation for interpreting high resolution manometry (HRM) and identification of clinically relevant EGJ outflow obstruction (EGJOO).
methodsThree distinct cohorts, "Controls", Normal motility", and "conclusive EGJOO" were selected from a prospectively enrolled cohort of adult patients. All patients had at least undergone HRM with impedance (HRIM), and functional lumen impedance probe (FLIP) testing. 4D HRM analysis was performed blinded to clinical characteristics. 4D HRM IBP results were assessed on a per-swallow and also on a per-patient level. Receiver operating curve (ROCs) to assess each metrics prediction of conclusive EGJOO vs. not EGJOO (normal motility and controls) were utilized for the per-swallow analysis. KEY
results33 controls, 35 normal motility, and 15 conclusive EGJOO patients were included. Swallow level analysis was conducted on 156 swallows, 165 swallows, and 61 swallows from each group, respectively. Per-swallow analysis demonstrated differences between conclusive EGJOO, normal motility, and controls for all ten IBP measures (P-values < 0.001), with greater IBP measures in conclusive EGJOO than in normal motility and controls. The 1 s max IBP had the greatest AUROC. CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: Standardized measurement of IBP using an optimized method (1-s max IBP) within the 4D-HRM framework with impedance-confirmed bolus tracking and phase-specific measures represents a physiologically grounded and clinically meaningful advance in HRIM interpretation.
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.