ArticleActa gastroenterologica Latinoamericana
Article in Acta gastroenterologica Latinoamericana. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Eosinophilic esophagitis is poorly characterized in Latin America. We aimed to estimate its prevalence and describe its clinical, endoscopic, and histologic features, treatments, remission, and associated factors. Materials and methods: Cross-sectional analysis of a retrospective-prospective registry. The study included adults with confirmed eosinophilic esophagitis between 2014 and 2025, defined by symptoms of esophageal dysfunction and ≥15 eosinophils per high-power field. Factors associated with histologic remission were explored using logistic regression. Results: A total of 129 adults were included (72.9% male; median age, 43 years). Prevalence was 36 per 100,000 health plan members (95% CI, 27 - 47), and median diagnostic delay was 8.21 months. Dysphagia (75.1%) and food impaction (63.2%) were the predominant symptoms. Frequent endoscopic findings included furrows (30.4%), edema (24.9%), and rings (23.4%); 49% had a normal endoscopy. Treatments included proton pump inhibitors (88%), topical corticosteroids (45%), and an elimination diet (39%). Clinical remission was 51.2% and histologic remission was 34.3%. Food sensitization was associated with histologic remission (adjusted odds ratio, 3.31; 95% CI, 1.26 - 8.73; p = 0.015). Among those who achieved histologic remission, 28% continued to have an incomplete clinical response. Conclusion: The local prevalence was at the lower end of the pooled global estimate (40.04; 95% CI, 31.10 - 48.98) and below the 2017 - 2022 estimate (74.42; 95% CI, 39.66 - 109.19), and lower than contemporary estimates from the United States and Spain, with methodological and population-related caveats. Normal endoscopies reinforce the need for biopsies when eosinophilic esophagitis is suspected. Histologic remission in one-third of cases highlights the need to optimize treatment and follow-up.
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.