Title |
Practical aspects of high resolution esophageal manometry.
|
---|---|
Published in |
Revista Española de Enfermedades Digestivas, January 2016
|
DOI | 10.17235/reed.2016.4441/2016 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Antonio Ruiz de León San Juan, Constanza Ciriza de Los Ríos, Julio Pérez de la Serna Bueno, Fernando Canga Rodríguez-Valcárcel, Fermín Estremera Arévalo, Raquel García Sánchez, José Walter Huamán Ríos, María Teresa Pérez Fernández, Cecilio Santander Vaquero, Jordi Serra Pueyo, Concepción Sevilla Mantilla, Elisabeth Barba Orozco, María José Bosque López, Sergio Casabona Francés, Silvia Carrión Bolorino, Pilar Castillo Grau, Silvia Delgado Aros, Ana Belén Domínguez Carbajo, Pilar Fernández Orcajo, Javier García-Lledó, Froilán Gigantó Tomé, Rosa Iglesias Picazo, Gloria Lacima Vidal, Pilar López López, Magdalena Llabrés Rosselló, Pilar Mas Mercader, Marianela Mego Silva, María Usua Mendarte Barrenetxea, Carlos Miliani Molina, Milagros Oreja Arrayago, Francisco Sánchez Ceballos, Sandra Sánchez Prudencio |
Abstract |
High resolution esophageal manometry (HRM) is currently under development as can be seen in the various Chicago classifications. In order to standardize criteria in certain practical aspects with limited scientific evidence, the First National Meeting for Consensus in High Resolution Manometry of the Spanish Digestive Motility Group took place, bringing together a wide group of experts. The proposals were based on a prior survey composed of 47 questions, an exhaustive review of the available literature and the experience of the participants. Methodological aspects relating to the poorly defined analysis criteria of certain new high resolution parameters were discussed, as well as other issues previously overlooked such as spontaneous activity or secondary waves. Final conclusions were drawn with practical applications. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Spain | 5 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 26 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Other | 6 | 23% |
Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 19% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 8% |
Researcher | 2 | 8% |
Student > Master | 1 | 4% |
Other | 3 | 12% |
Unknown | 7 | 27% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 69% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 4% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 4% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
Unknown | 5 | 19% |