Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 3,924

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Montreal Definition and Classification of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: A Global Evidence-Based Consensus

Vakil, Nimish, van Zanten, Sander V., Kahrilas, Peter, Dent, John, Jones, Roger, the Global Consensus Group·2006·The American Journal of Gastroenterology

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: A globally acceptable definition and classification of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is desirable for research and clinical practice. The aim of this initiative was to develop a consensus definition and classification that would be useful for patients, physicians, and regulatory agencies. METHODS: A modified Delphi process was employed to reach consensus using repeated iterative voting. A series of statements was developed by a working group of five experts after a systematic review of the literature in three databases (Embase, Cochrane trials register, Medline). Over a period of 2 yr, the statements were developed, modified, and approved through four rounds of voting. The voting group consisted of 44 experts from 18 countries. The final vote was conducted on a 6-point scale and consensus was defined a priori as agreement by two-thirds of the participants. RESULTS: The level of agreement strengthened throughout the process with two-thirds of the participants agreeing with 86%, 88%, 94%, and 100% of statements at each vote, respectively. At the final vote, 94% of the final 51 statements were approved by 90% of the Consensus Group, and 90% of statements were accepted with strong agreement or minor reservation. GERD was defined as a condition that develops when the reflux of stomach contents causes troublesome symptoms and/or complications. The disease was subclassified into esophageal and extraesophageal syndromes. Novel aspects of the new definition include a patient-centered approach that is independent of endoscopic findings, subclassification of the disease into discrete syndromes, and the recognition of laryngitis, cough, asthma, and dental erosions as possible GERD syndromes. It also proposes a new definition for suspected and proven Barrett's esophagus. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence-based global consensus definitions are possible despite differences in terminology and language, prevalence, and manifestations of the disease in different countries. A global consensus definition for GERD may simplify disease management, allow collaborative research, and make studies more generalizable, assisting patients, physicians, and regulatory agencies.

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 · 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00630.x

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

See all 3,924

Metadata

Authors
Vakil, N., van Zanten, S. V., Kahrilas, P., Dent, J., Jones, R., & the Global Consensus Group
Venue
The American Journal of Gastroenterology
Published
2006-08
Volume
101
Issue
8
Pages
1900-1920
ISSN
  • 0002-9270 (ISSN-L)
  • 1572-0241
OpenAlex
W2114442699
Cited by
3,924
References
3
FWCI
99.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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 Montreal Definition and Classification of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: A Global Evidence-Based Consensus. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00630.x
The paper
Vakil, N., van Zanten, S. V., Kahrilas, P., Dent, J., Jones, R., & the Global Consensus Group. (2006). The Montreal Definition and Classification of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: A Global Evidence-Based Consensus. The American Journal of Gastroenterology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00630.x

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.