Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,964

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Chicago Classification of esophageal motility disorders, v3.0

Open access
Kahrilas, P. J., Bredenoord, A. J., Fox, M., Gyawali, C. P., Roman, S., Smout, A. J. P. M., Pandolfino, J. E., International High Resolution Manometry Working Group·2015·Neurogastroenterology & Motility

Abstract

Background: The Chicago Classification ( CC ) of esophageal motility disorders, utilizing an algorithmic scheme to analyze clinical high‐resolution manometry ( HRM ) studies, has gained acceptance worldwide. Methods: This 2014 update, CC v3.0, developed by the International HRM Working Group, incorporated the extensive clinical experience and interval publications since the prior (2011) version. Key Results: Chicago Classification v3.0 utilizes a hierarchical approach, sequentially prioritizing: (i) disorders of esophagogastric junction ( EGJ ) outflow (achalasia subtypes I‐III and EGJ outflow obstruction), (ii) major disorders of peristalsis (absent contractility, distal esophageal spasm, hypercontractile esophagus), and (iii) minor disorders of peristalsis characterized by impaired bolus transit. EGJ morphology, characterized by the degree of overlap between the lower esophageal sphincter and the crural diaphragm and baseline EGJ contractility are also part of CC v3.0. Compared to the previous CC version, the key metrics of interpretation, the integrated relaxation pressure ( IRP ), the distal contractile integral ( DCI ), and the distal latency ( DL ) remain unchanged, albeit with much more emphasis on DCI for defining both hypo‐ and hypercontractility. New in CC v3.0 are: (i) the evaluation of the EGJ at rest defined in terms of morphology and contractility, (ii) ‘fragmented’ contractions (large breaks in the 20‐mmHg isobaric contour), (iii) ineffective esophageal motility ( IEM ), and (iv) several minor adjustments in nomenclature and defining criteria. Absent in CC v3.0 are contractile front velocity and small breaks in the 20‐mmHg isobaric contour as defining characteristics. Conclusions & Inferences: Chicago Classification v3.0 is an updated analysis scheme for clinical esophageal HRM recordings developed by the International HRM Working Group.

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/nmo.12477

Cites

2 of 2 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

Cited by

See all 1,964

Metadata

Authors
Kahrilas, P. J., Bredenoord, A. J., Fox, M., Gyawali, C. P., Roman, S., Smout, A. J. P. M., Pandolfino, J. E., & International High Resolution Manometry Working Group
Venue
Neurogastroenterology & Motility
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-12-03
Volume
27
Issue
2
Pages
160-174
ISSN
  • 1350-1925 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2982
OpenAlex
W2023804350
Cited by
1,964
References
2
FWCI
108.57
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

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.