ArticleNeurogastroenterology and motility2026
Definition of Clinically Meaningful Thresholds for the Brief Esophageal Dysphagia Questionnaire and Eckardt Score: A Multicenter Psychometric Study.
Article in 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.
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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Brief Esophageal Dysphagia Questionnaire (BEDQ) and Eckardt score (ES) are the most used patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for dysphagia. However, their patient-centered cutoffs, minimal important difference (MID), and test-retest reliability have not been established. We aimed to address these gaps and evaluate BEDQ treatment responsiveness.
methodsThis prospective multicenter study was conducted in tertiary centers in Spain and Latin America and enrolled adults referred for high-resolution manometry. Three cohorts were derived: the cutoff cohort (subsequently subdivided into a derivation and a validation cohort), the test-retest cohort (consecutive subsample re-administered PROs), and the treatment responsiveness cohort (patients treated for achalasia). Self-perceived severity was evaluated using a 5-point Likert Patient Global Impression of Severity (PGIS) scale and applied as PGIS < 2 (No/Mild symptoms (NMSS)) and ≥ 2.
resultsThe cutoff cohort included 571 patients, subdivided into derivation (397) and validation (174) cohorts. A BEDQ cutoff of < 9 and ES < 4 optimally predicted NMSS. The validation cohort and bootstrapping confirmed the stability of these cutoffs. MID was 5 points for BEDQ and 1 point for ES, consistent across cohorts. BEDQ showed excellent test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.97), significantly higher than ES (0.85). Both PROs showed statistically significant reductions following treatment (p < 0.001 for both), with standardized response means of 2.14 and 1.98 for BEDQ and ES, respectively.
conclusionsBEDQ < 9 and ES < 4 are clinically meaningful thresholds for identifying patients with NMSS. Changes exceeding 5 points for BEDQ and 1 point for ES represent clinically meaningful differences. BEDQ demonstrates superior psychometric properties compared to ES.
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.