4.4 Review

Normative reference values for esophageal high-resolution manometry in healthy adults: A systematic review

Journal

NEUROGASTROENTEROLOGY AND MOTILITY
Volume 33, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/nmo.13954

Keywords

high-resolution manometry; normative values; provocative maneuvers

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The systematic review highlighted the large variation in normative values for high-resolution esophageal manometry depending on equipment and protocols used. Clinicians should consider these differences when interpreting measurements in clinical practice and comparing results.
Background and purpose Establishing normative values of high-resolution esophageal manometry is necessary for accurate interpretation and comparison of measurements. In this systematic review, we aimed to summarize normal values for different esophageal high-resolution manometry systems. Moreover, we assessed the effect of body position, bolus consistency, and provocative maneuvers on these normative thresholds. We searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from January 1st, 2006, to January 20th, 2020, for studies that reported normative data of high-resolution manometry in healthy volunteers. We assessed methodological quality of the included studies and planned a descriptive analysis. We analyzed data from 54 articles describing normative thresholds in high-resolution manometry using solid-state or water-perfused systems. Forty-six studies performed the manometry study in the supine position with liquid swallows, whereas sixteen studies described normative values in the upright position. Twelve studies assessed normative values for different bolus consistencies, and nine studies evaluated different provocative maneuvers. There is a considerable variety of normative values for esophageal high-resolution manometry depending on the equipment used and the protocols performed to obtain measurements. This should be taken into account when evaluating measurements in clinical practice and when comparing results of published research studies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available