Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42494146›Full record

ReviewThe Korean journal of gastroenterology = Taehan Sohwagi Hakhoe chi2026

[Modern Diagnostic Strategies for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: Focus on Lyon Consensus 2.0].

Tae Hee Lee

Abstract readEnglish AbstractReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Korean journal of gastroenterology = Taehan Sohwagi Hakhoe chi, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Tae Hee LeeDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Soonchunhyang University Seoul Hospital, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-3049-8252

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) has evolved from a symptom-based approach to an objective test-based strategy. Lyon consensus 2.0 provides updated criteria for classifying GERD as conclusive or inconclusive and proposes differential diagnostic strategies based on prior GERD evidence and symptom presentation. Recent evidence incorporated into Lyon consensus 2.0 was reviewed with emphasis on actionable GERD, unproven versus proven GERD, updated endoscopic criteria, prolonged wireless pH monitoring, ambulatory pH-impedance monitoring, and adjunctive reflux metrics. Lyon consensus 2.0 defines actionable GERD as a condition in which objective esophageal testing supports revising, escalating, or personalizing management in symptomatic patients. Major updates include recognizing Los Angeles grade B esophagitis as conclusive evidence of GERD, preferring prolonged wireless pH monitoring for unproven GERD with typical symptoms, and use of on-therapy pH-impedance monitoring in proven GERD with persistent symptoms. The acid exposure time remains the primary reflux metric, while the number of reflux episodes and mean nocturnal baseline impedance serve as adjunctive parameters. In contrast, the postreflux swallow-induced peristaltic wave index has been retired from the core diagnostic framework. Lyon consensus 2.0 refines modern GERD diagnosis by integrating symptom phenotype, prior objective evidence, and context-specific reflux testing. Its main clinical value lies in personalizing diagnostic strategies and improving confidence in treatment-related decision-making.

Indexed as

Gastroesophageal RefluxDiagnosis, DifferentialElectric ImpedanceEsophageal pH MonitoringHumansDiagnosisEsophageal impedanceEsophageal pH monitoringEsophagitisGastroesophageal reflux

Identifiers

PMID42494146
PMCPMC13407492

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.