Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 374

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Clinical, Endoscopic, and Histologic Findings Distinguish Eosinophilic Esophagitis From Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease

Open access
Dellon, Evan S., Gibbs, Wood B., Fritchie, Karen J., Rubinas, Tara C., Wilson, Lindsay A., Woosley, John T., Shaheen, Nicholas J.·2009·Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology

Abstract

Background & Aims Features of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) overlap; because they cannot be differentiated based on eosinophil counts alone, it can be a challenge to distinguish between these disorders. We aimed to characterize the clinical, endoscopic, and histologic features of EoE and GERD and identify factors that might be used to differentiate them. Methods We performed a retrospective case-control study on data collected from 2000 to 2007. Cases were patients of any age with EoE, as defined by recent consensus guidelines; controls were patients of any age with GERD. Clinical and endoscopic data were collected and all esophageal biopsy specimens were reassessed by gastrointestinal pathologists. Cases and controls were compared, unconditional logistic regression was performed to develop a model to predict EoE, and receiver operator characteristic curves were constructed. Results Data from 151 patients with EoE and 226 with GERD were analyzed. Compared to GERD, features that independently predicted EoE included younger age; symptoms of dysphagia; documented food allergies; observations of esophageal rings, linear furrows, white plaques, or exudates by upper endoscopy; an absence of a hiatal hernia, observed by upper endoscopy; a higher maximum eosinophil count; and the presence of eosinophil degranulation, observed in biopsy specimens. The area under the curve for this model was 0.934. Conclusions We identified a set of readily available and routinely measured variables that differentiate EoE from GERD. Use of this type of analysis with patients suspected to have EoE might lead to more accurate diagnoses.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cgh.2009.08.030

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 374

Metadata

Authors
Dellon, E. S., Gibbs, W. B., Fritchie, K. J., Rubinas, T. C., Wilson, L. A., Woosley, J. T., & Shaheen, N. J.
Venue
Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-12
Volume
7
Issue
12
Pages
1305-1313
ISSN
1542-3565 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2085909033
Cited by
374
References
4
FWCI
23.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Clinical, Endoscopic, and Histologic Findings Distinguish Eosinophilic Esophagitis From Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.cgh.2009.08.030
The paper
Dellon, E. S., Gibbs, W. B., Fritchie, K. J., Rubinas, T. C., Wilson, L. A., Woosley, J. T., & Shaheen, N. J. (2009). Clinical, Endoscopic, and Histologic Findings Distinguish Eosinophilic Esophagitis From Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2009.08.030

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.