Evidence Hub

The Milan score: A novel manometric tool for a more efficient diagnosis of gastro‐esophageal reflux disease

Stefano Siboni, M. Sozzi, I. Kristo, S. Boveri, B. Rogers, N. de Bortoli, A. Hobson, Brian E. Louie et al.

United European Gastroenterology journal, 2024

295 participants · 34 citations

Abstract

Abstract Objective A definitive diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) depends on endoscopic and/or pH‐study criteria. However, high resolution manometry (HRM) can identify factors predicting GERD, such as ineffective esophageal motility (IEM), esophago‐gastric junction contractile integral (EGJ‐CI), evaluating esophagogastric junction (EGJ) type and straight leg raise (SLR) maneuver response. We aimed to build and externally validate a manometric score (Milan Score) to stratify the risk and severity of the disease in patients undergoing HRM for suspected GERD. Methods A population of 295 consecutive patients undergoing HRM and pH‐study for persistent typical or atypical GERD symptoms was prospectively enrolled to build a model and a nomogram that provides a risk score for AET > 6%. Collected HRM data included IEM, EGJ‐CI, EGJ type and SLR. A supplemental cohort of patients undergoing HRM and pH‐study was also prospectively enrolled in 13 high‐volume esophageal function laboratories across the world in order to validate the model. Discrimination and calibration were used to assess model's accuracy. Gastroesophageal reflux disease was defined as acid exposure time >6%. Results Out of the analyzed variables, SLR response and EGJ subtype 3 had the highest impact on the score (odd ratio 18.20 and 3.87, respectively). The external validation cohort consisted of 233 patients. In the validation model, the corrected Harrel c‐index was 0.90. The model‐fitting optimism…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 295 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free