Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 368

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 83 of the 83 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Prevalence and Diagnostic Utility of Endoscopic Features of Eosinophilic Esophagitis: A Meta-analysis

Open access
Kim, Hannah P., Vance, R. Brooks, Shaheen, Nicholas J., Dellon, Evan S.·2012·Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology

Abstract

Background & Aims Endoscopic findings such as esophageal rings, strictures, narrow-caliber esophagus, linear furrows, white plaques, and pallor or decreased vasculature might indicate the presence of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). We aimed to determine the prevalence and diagnostic utility of endoscopic features of EoE. Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. PubMed, EMBASE, and GI meeting abstracts were searched to identify studies that included ≥ 10 patients with EoE and reported endoscopic findings. Pooled prevalence, sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values were calculated using random- and mixed-effects models. Results The search yielded 100 articles and abstracts on 4678 patients with EoE and 2742 without (controls). In subjects with EoE, the overall pooled prevalence of esophageal rings was 44%, strictures 21%, narrow-caliber esophagus 9%, linear furrows 48%, white plaques 27%, and pallor/decreased vasculature 41%. Substantial heterogeneity existed among studies. Results from endoscopy examinations were normal in 17% of patients, but this number decreased to 7% when the analysis was limited to prospective studies (P<.05). Overall levels of sensitivity were modest, ranging from 15% to 48%, whereas levels of specificity were greater, ranging from 90% to 95%. Positive predictive values ranged from 51% to 73% and negative predictive values ranged from 74% to 84%. Conclusions There is heterogeneity among studies in the reported prevalence of endoscopic findings in patients with EoE, but in prospective studies, at least 1 abnormality was detected by endoscopy in 93% of patients. The operating characteristics of endoscopic findings alone are inadequate for diagnosis of EoE. Esophageal biopsies should be obtained from all patients with clinical features of EoE, regardless of the endoscopic appearance of the esophagus.

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.2012.04.019

Cites

83 of 83 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 83 references

Cited by

See all 368

Metadata

Authors
Kim, H. P., Vance, R. B., Shaheen, N. J., & Dellon, E. S.
Venue
Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-09
Volume
10
Issue
9
Pages
988-996.e5
ISSN
1542-3565 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2004630542
Cited by
368
References
83
FWCI
5.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: The Prevalence and Diagnostic Utility of Endoscopic Features of Eosinophilic Esophagitis: A Meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.cgh.2012.04.019
The paper
Kim, H. P., Vance, R. B., Shaheen, N. J., & Dellon, E. S. (2012). The Prevalence and Diagnostic Utility of Endoscopic Features of Eosinophilic Esophagitis: A Meta-analysis. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2012.04.019

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.