Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 2,305

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Endoscopic assessment of oesophagitis: clinical and functional correlates and further validation of the Los Angeles classification

Open access
Lundell, L R, Dent, J, Bennett, J R, Blum, A L, Armstrong, D, Galmiche, J P, Johnson, F, Hongo, M, Richter, J E, Spechler, S J, Tytgat, G N J, Wallin, L·1999·Gut

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic oesophageal changes are diagnostically helpful and identify patients exposed to the risk of disease chronicity. However, there is a serious lack of agreement about how to describe and classify the appearance of reflux oesophagitis AIMS: To examine the reliability of criteria that describe the circumferential extent of mucosal breaks and to evaluate the functional and clinical correlates of patients with reflux disease whose oesophagitis was graded according to the Los Angeles system. METHODS: Forty six endoscopists from different countries used a detailed worksheet to evaluate endoscopic video recordings from 22 patients with the full range of severity of reflux oesophagitis. In separate studies, Los Angeles system gradings were correlated with 24 hour oesophageal pH monitoring (178 patients), and with clinical trials of omeprazole treatment (277 patients). RESULTS: Evaluation of circumferential extent of oesophagitis by the criterion of whether mucosal breaks extended between the tops of mucosal folds, gave acceptable agreement (mean κ value 0.4) among observers. This approach is used in the Los Angeles system. An alternative approach of grouping the circumferential extent of mucosal breaks as occupying 0–25%, 26–50%, 51–75%, 76–99%, or 100% of the oesophageal circumference, gave unacceptably high interobserver variation (mean κ values 0–0.15) for all but the lowest category of extent (mean κ value 0.4). Severity of oesophageal acid exposure was significantly (p<0.001) related to the severity grade of oesophagitis. Preteatment oesophagitis grades A–C were related to heartburn severity (p<0.01), outcomes of omeprazole (10 mg daily) treatment (p<0.01), and the risk for symptom relapse off therapy over six months (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Results add further support to previous studies for the clinical utility of the Los Angeles system for endoscopic grading of oesophagitis.

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 · 10.1136/gut.45.2.172

Cites

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

Cited by

See all 2,305

Metadata

Authors
Lundell, L. R., Dent, J., Bennett, J. R., Blum, A. L., Armstrong, D., Galmiche, J. P., Johnson, F., Hongo, M., Richter, J. E., Spechler, S. J., Tytgat, G. N. J., & Wallin, L.
Venue
Gut
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1999-08-01
Volume
45
Issue
2
Pages
172-180
ISSN
  • 0017-5749 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-3288
OpenAlex
W2141185001
Cited by
2,305
References
0
FWCI
16.92
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: Endoscopic assessment of oesophagitis: clinical and functional correlates and further validation of the Los Angeles classification. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/gut.45.2.172
The paper
Lundell, L. R., Dent, J., Bennett, J. R., Blum, A. L., Armstrong, D., Galmiche, J. P., Johnson, F., Hongo, M., Richter, J. E., Spechler, S. J., Tytgat, G. N. J., & Wallin, L. (1999). Endoscopic assessment of oesophagitis: clinical and functional correlates and further validation of the Los Angeles classification. Gut. https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.45.2.172

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.