P1.026. Diagnostic Yield of Esophagram Compared to Gold Standard Ambulatory Reflux Monitoring for Detection of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease

Clicks: 16
ID: 326095
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #410 of 453 articles by views in diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the international society for diseases of the esophagus

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 453 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract Topic Benign Disease: Gastro-Esophageal Reflux and Hiatal Hernia Background Ambulatory reflux monitoring (wireless pH or catheter-based pH-impedance) performed off acid suppression is the gold standard for diagnosing gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Barium esophagram (BE), commonly used to evaluate esophageal symptoms, routinely assesses reflux, yet its diagnostic accuracy relative to ambulatory monitoring remains unclear. Existing studies are limited, relied on outdated reflux criteria, and demonstrated poor concordance with BE-based GERD diagnoses. We aimed to determine whether BE reliably identifies GERD compared with ambulatory reflux monitoring interpreted using updated Lyon 2.0 consensus criteria. Methods Retrospective analysis of adult patients that underwent BE and ambulatory reflux monitoring (wireless pH or pH-impedance) off PPI within an 8-month interval. Patients with a history of fundoplication were excluded. Esophagram was performed with standard technique and reported by radiology, considered positive for GERD if there was reflux above the thoracic inlet with or without provocative maneuvers. Reflux monitoring studies were considered positive or negative for GERD based on Lyon consensus 2.0 recommendations. Inter-rater reliability, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and received operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis were calculated for esophagram, with reflux monitoring diagnosis as the gold standard. Results 64 patients were included, 31 % male, mean age = 60 years, mean Body Mass Index = 26. GERD was diagnosed by esophagram in 20 patients (31%), and by reflux monitoring in 19 (30%). Compared to reflux monitoring, BE had sensitivity: 47%, specificity: 76%, PPV: 45%, NPV: 77%, and area under the ROC curve: 0.61 (Figure 1). Inter-rater reliability between BE and ambulatory reflux monitoring was poor (Cohen's Kappa = 0.226). Conclusion There was poor concordance between BE and ambulatory reflux monitoring for diagnosing GERD. BE overall had suboptimal diagnostic performance, with low sensitivity, and moderate specificity. Furthermore, the area under the ROC curve indicates limited ability to distinguish correctly between patients with and without GERD. These findings indicate that barium esophagram should not be relied upon as a diagnostic tool for GERD.
Reference Key
openalex_W7203996021 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Fangfang Wang, Anika Vela, Josealberto Arenas-Martinez, Michael Crowell, Francisco Ramirez, Marcelo Vela
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the international society for diseases of the esophagus
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/dote/doag077.174
URL
https://academic.oup.com/dote/article-pdf/39/Supplement_1/doag077.174/70761159/doag077.174.pdf
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.