ArticleNeurogastroenterology and motility2026
Accuracy of Novice Raters for Esophageal Motility Classifications Using Functional Lumen Imaging Probe Panometry.
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 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Letter to the Editor Concerning: Methodological Limitations in the Assessment of Novice Rater Competency for FLIP Panometry.Neurogastroenterology and motility · 2026Article
- Reply: Learnability of FLIP Panometry-Novice Performance Supports Broader Clinical Use.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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionFunctional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) Panometry classifies esophageal motility using esophagogastric junction (EGJ) opening and esophageal contractile patterns. A previous study evaluated FLIP Panometry interpretation among esophageal specialists (which demonstrated an average accuracy of 78% for FLIP motility diagnoses), but the interpretation performance of nonexperts remains unknown. This study aimed to assess the accuracy and interrater agreement of novice raters using FLIP Panometry v1.0 and the novel v2.0 (Dallas Consensus) motility classification schemes.
methodsEight non-gastroenterology trainees without previous FLIP or esophageal motility experience interpreted 40 FLIP studies. Brief training included a video tutorial and review of 10 practice studies with an esophageal specialist. Accuracy was assessed using percent agreement with the reference standard assigned by two experienced raters. Interrater agreement was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Fleiss' kappa.
resultsAccuracy of motility diagnosis was mean (95% CI) 0.73 (0.68-0.78) for v2.0 and 0.78 (0.73-0.82) for v1.0. Accuracies ≥ 78% were achieved by four raters for v2.0 and five for v1.0, while other raters' accuracies ranged from 55% to 75%. Accuracy for EGJ opening classification was 0.80 (0.75-0.84) and for contractile response pattern was 0.78 (0.74-0.83) for v2.0 and 0.78 (0.74-0.83) for v1.0. Moderate-to-good interrater agreement was observed (ICC 0.80-0.83; kappa 0.55-0.61).
conclusionFollowing brief training, some novice raters achieved accuracy akin to esophageal motility specialists when interpreting FLIP Panometry motility studies. While variation in accuracy highlights the need for improved and adequate training methods for esophageal motility interpretation, accurate FLIP Panometry interpretation was achievable among nonspecialists, supporting feasibility for broad use.
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.