Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42504650›Full record

ReviewJournal of neurogastroenterology and motility2026

Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease and Reflux-like Phenotypes: Using Lyon Consensus 2.0 to Guide Clinical Approach.

Matthew K Schroeder, C Prakash Gyawali

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of 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.

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

2 authors.

Matthew K SchroederDivision of Gastroenterology, Washington University in St. Louis, MO, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8358-8895
C Prakash GyawaliDivision of Gastroenterology, Washington University in St. Louis, MO, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3388-0660

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is common worldwide, but troublesome symptoms alone are not sufficient for a conclusive diagnosis. The Montreal Consensus introduced a symptom-based definition of GERD and defined mucosal injury phenotypes of the disease. The Lyon Consensus adapted mucosal injury findings as well as defined abnormal reflux burden criteria for the diagnosis of conclusive GERD. The diagnosis of esophageal disorders of gut-brain interaction (E-DGBI) using Rome V criteria requires exclusion of GERD, which is also described in the Lyon Consensus 2.0 criteria. Collectively utilizing these various criteria, distinct phenotypes can be identified in patients with troublesome reflux-like symptoms. The mucosal injury phenotype, initially defined by the Montreal Consensus, requires reflux management for healing of esophagitis to improve symptoms, and surveillance to identify and prevent GERD complications including Barrett's esophagus and esophageal adenocarcinoma. The abnormal reflux burden phenotype requires reflux management for symptom improvement. The E-DGBI phenotype requires specific management of each of the functional disorders for symptom relief. Hypervigilance and symptom-specific anxiety can overlap with all the phenotypes, and E-DGBI can coexist with conclusive GERD. Therefore, there are intricate interrelationships between Montreal, Lyon and Rome criteria that aid evaluation of troublesome symptoms, and concepts from each of these contribute to accurate phenotyping and optimal management of patients.

Indexed as

Esophageal hypervigilanceEsophagitisFunctional esophageal disordersGastroesophageal reflux diseaseRumination

Identifiers

PMID42504650
PMCPMC13425011

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.