ReviewLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2026
Demographic Factors in Pharyngoesophageal Segment Size: A Scoping Review.
Review in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The Pharyngoesophageal Segment (PES) is situated at the junction of the pharynx and esophagus, regulating the passage of bolus from the pharynx into the esophagus during swallowing and preventing aspiration into the airway. Decreased opening of this sphincter can result in significant swallow impairment. Knowledge of normal PES size can be critical for diagnostic purposes and treatment planning. This systematic review seeks to aggregate the evidence correlating PES size with demographic factors, including age, sex, and obesity status. Data Sources: A search performed on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Ovid included literature published before August 18, 2025. Review Methods: Inclusion criteria were healthy adult populations (including cadavers). Publications investigating only animal, pediatric, or pathologic populations or that did not include demographic comparisons were excluded. Results: A total of 5815 studies were retrieved, and 679 subjects across 10 studies met the inclusion criteria. Diverse parameters were measured, including PES area, diameter, lateral diameter, and anterior-posterior diameter. With varying parameters, different bolus sizes, and few papers, conclusive findings on PES size were not found. Studies that reported the mean size for each demographic group recorded a greater male PES size than female. The data conflicted regarding a greater PES size in elderly or non-elderly populations. Mean data regarding obesity and height were not reported but were noted not to significantly impact PES size. Conclusion: Many research gaps exist in defining normal PES size. Further research is needed to better elucidate issues like age-related differences, as well as measurement parameters and techniques.
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.