Premium
Normative reference values for esophageal high‐resolution manometry in healthy adults: A systematic review
Author(s) -
Alcala Gonzalez Luis G.,
Oude Nijhuis Renske A. B.,
Smout Andreas J. P. M.,
Bredenoord Albert J.
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
neurogastroenterology and motility
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.489
H-Index - 105
eISSN - 1365-2982
pISSN - 1350-1925
DOI - 10.1111/nmo.13954
Subject(s) - normative , medicine , supine position , high resolution manometry , reference values , medline , bolus (digestion) , systematic review , surgery , esophagus , philosophy , epistemology , achalasia , political science , law
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.