MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2519957621 · doi:10.1038/ajg.2016.402

Achalasia-Specific Quality of Life After Pneumatic Dilation or Laparoscopic Heller Myotomy With Partial Fundoplication: A Multicenter, Randomized Clinical Trial

2016· article· en· W2519957621 on OpenAlexaffabout
Caitlin C Chrystoja, Gail Darling, Nicholas E. Diamant, Paul Kortan, George Tomlinson, Wayne Deitel, Audrey Laporte, Julie Takata, David R. Urbach

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastroesophageal reflux and treatments
Canadian institutionsWomen's College HospitalMount Sinai HospitalSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoToronto General HospitalPublic Health Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAchalasiaMyotomyRandomized controlled trialHeller myotomySurgeryRandomizationQuality of life (healthcare)Confidence intervalEsophagusInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Achalasia is a chronic, progressive, and incurable esophageal motility disease. There is clinical uncertainty about which treatment should be recommended as first-line therapy. Our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of pneumatic dilation compared with laparoscopic Heller myotomy with partial fundoplication in improving achalasia-specific quality of life. METHODS: This was a prospective, multicenter, randomized trial at five academic hospitals in Canada. Fifty previously untreated adults with a clinical diagnosis of primary achalasia, confirmed by manometric testing, were enrolled between November 2005 and March 2010, and followed for 5 years after treatment. Randomization was stratified by site, in random blocks of size four and with balanced allocation. Patients were treated with pneumatic dilation or laparoscopic Heller myotomy with partial fundoplication. The primary outcome was the difference between the treatments in the mean improvement of the achalasia severity questionnaire (ASQ) score at 1 year from baseline. Prespecified secondary outcomes included general and gastrointestinal quality of life, symptoms, esophageal physiology measures (lower esophageal sphincter relaxation and pressure, esophageal emptying, abnormal esophageal acid exposure), complications, and incidence of retreatment. Functional and imaging studies were performed blinded and all outcome assessors were blinded. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between treatments in the improvement of ASQ score at 1 year from baseline (27.5 points in the Heller myotomy arm vs. 20.2 points in the pneumatic dilation arm; difference 7.3 points, 95% confidence interval -4.7 to 19.3; P=0.23). There were no differences between treatments in improvement of symptoms, general and gastrointestinal quality of life, or measures of esophageal physiology. Improvements in ASQ score diminished over time for both interventions. At 5 years, there were no differences between treatments in improvement of ASQ score, symptoms, and general or gastrointestinal quality of life. There were no serious adverse events. No patient who received Heller myotomy required retreatment, whereas five patients treated initially with pneumatic dilation required retreatment. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with pneumatic dilation or laparoscopic Heller myotomy similarly improves achalasia-specific disease severity at 1 year. Either of the therapeutic approaches can be used as first-line therapy for previously untreated adults with achalasia.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.313 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations52
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of GastroenterologySame topicGastroesophageal reflux and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207