Log In Sign up
The largest database of trusted experimental protocols
> Disorders > Disease or Syndrome > Esophageal Diseases

Esophageal Diseases

Esophageal Diseases encompass a wide range of conditions affecting the esophagus, the muscular tube connecting the throat to the stomach.
These disorders can impair the esophagus's ability to function properly, leading to symptoms such as difficulty swallowing, chest pain, and heartburn.
Comman esophageal diseases include gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), Barrett's esophagus, esophageal cancer, and motility disorders like achalasia.
Effective management of these conditions often requires a multidisciplinary approach, combining medication, dietary changes, and in some cases, surgical intervention.
Understanding the latest research on optimal treatment protocols is crucial for healthcare providers to deliver high-quality, evidence-based care to patients with esophageal diseases.

Most cited protocols related to «Esophageal Diseases»

1
Dysphagia Symptom Evaluation: BEDQ Protocol
The initial version of the BEDQ is a 10-item self-report measure of dysphagia symptom frequency (5 items), severity (3 items), and impaction (2 items). Symptom frequency (e.g. “trouble eating solid food (meat, bread),” “coughing or choking while swallowing foods or liquids”) is measured on a 6-point Likert scale from “never” to “daily” during the past 30 days. Symptom severity (e.g. “Eating solid food (meat, bread, vegetables),” “drinking liquids”) is measured on a 6-point Likert scale from “none” to “severe” during the past 180 days. Impactions (e.g. “an emergency room visit because of food being stuck in throat or esophagus”) are measured on a 6-point Likert scale from “never” to “more than 4 times” during the past 12 months. Items on the BEDQ were selected by consensus from 2 gastroenterologists with expertise in treating dysphagia and other esophageal conditions and are scored from 0 to 5. Higher scores indicate greater impaction dysphagia. The BEDQ takes 1–2 minutes to complete. The final version of the BEDQ, taking into account modifications based on study findings, is found in Appendix A.
Taft T.H., Riehl M., Sodikoff J.B., Kahrilas P.J., Keefer L., Doerfler B, & Pandolfino J.E. (2016). Development and Validation of the Brief Esophageal Dysphagia Questionnaire. Neurogastroenterology and motility : the official journal of the European Gastrointestinal Motility Society, 28(12), 1854-1860.
Publication 2016
Bread Deglutition Disorders Esophageal Diseases Esophagus Food Gastroenterologist Impacted Tooth Meat Pharynx Vegetables
2
Retrospective Case-Control Study of EoE at UNC Hospitals

Protocol full text hidden due to copyright restrictions

Open the protocol to access the free full text link

Publication 2009
Acids Barrett Esophagus Biopsy Deglutition Disorders Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal Eosinophil Eosinophilia Esophageal Diseases Esophagogastroduodenoscopy Failure to Thrive Food Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Heartburn Impacted Tooth Inflammation Pain Patients Reading Frames
3
Prospective Cohort Study of Eosinophilic Esophagitis
We conducted a prospective cohort study at University of North Carolina from July, 2011 through December, 2013. Consecutive adult patients (age 18-80 years) undergoing routine outpatient esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) were approached if they had upper GI symptoms suggestive of esophageal dysfunction (e.g. dysphagia, food impaction, heartburn, reflux, chest pain). Subjects provided informed consent, including consent for future use of stored specimens, and were enrolled prior to the endoscopy. Subjects were excluded if they had a known (prevalent) diagnosis of EoE or a different eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorder (EGID), GI bleeding, active anticoagulation, known esophageal cancer, prior esophageal surgery, known esophageal varices, medical instability or multiple comorbidities precluding enrollment in the clinical opinion of the endoscopist, or inability to read or understand the consent form. This study was approved by the UNC Institutional Review Board and registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 01988285).
Cases were diagnosed with EoE if they met consensus guidelines (1 (link)-3 (link)). Specifically, they were required to have at least one typical symptom of esophageal dysfunction; at least 15 eosinophils per high-power field (eos/hpf) on esophageal biopsy persisting after an 8 week PPI trial (20-40 mg twice daily of any of the available agents, prescribed at the discretion of the clinician); and other causes of esophageal eosinophilia excluded. Of note, baseline data for the EoE cases were obtained after the PPI trial, at the time of the confirmatory EGD, but prior to receiving the histologic results confirming the diagnosis or provision of EoE-specific treatment, so as to minimize potential recall bias. Controls were subjects who, after endoscopy and biopsy, did not meet clinical or histologic criteria for EoE. Subjects with PPI-responsive esophageal eosinophilia (PPI-REE) were not included in this study.
Clinical data were collected using a standardized case report form. Items recorded included demographics, symptoms, concomitant atopic diseases, indications for endoscopy, and endoscopic findings. Food allergy data was collected by patient self-report on a prospectively administered questionnaire, and could therefore include both food allergies and sensitizations. Systematic allergy testing was not a component of this study. During endoscopy, research-protocol esophageal biopsies were obtained (two from the proximal, one from the mid, and two from the distal esophagus) to maximize EoE diagnostic sensitivity (30 (link), 31 ). Gastric and duodenal biopsies were also collected for research purposes to exclude concomitant eosinophilic gastroenteritis. Additional clinical biopsies were taken as indicated at the discretion of the endoscopist. Esophageal eosinophil counts were quantified by the study pathologists using our previously validated methods (32 (link)). In brief, slides were masked to case/control status, digitized, and reviewed with Aperio ImageScope (Aperio Technologies, Vista, CA). Five microscopy fields from each of the five biopsies were examined to determine the maximum eosinophil density (eosinophils/mm2 [eos/mm2]). So results could be compared to prior studies, eosinophil density was converted to an eosinophil count (eos/hpf) using a hpf size of 0.24 mm2, the most commonly reported field size in the literature (33 (link)).
EoE cases were treated for 8 weeks as clinically indicated with topical corticosteroids (either oval viscous budesonide 1 mg twice daily or fluticasone from a multi-dose inhaler, 880 mcg twice daily) (34 (link)-36 (link)). At the end of the treatment period, repeat upper endoscopy with biopsy was performed, with collection of a second set of blood and tissue samples as noted above. A second blood sample was also collected for a subset of control subjects at least 2 months after baseline samples were collected to assess for stability in biomarkers over time.
Dellon E.S., Rusin S., Gebhart J.H., Covey S., Higgins L.L., Beitia R., Speck O., Woodward K., Woosley J.T, & Shaheen N.J. (2015). Utility of a non-invasive serum biomarker panel for diagnosis and monitoring of eosinophilic esophagitis: A prospective study. The American journal of gastroenterology, 110(6), 821-827.
Publication 2015
Adrenal Cortex Hormones Adult Biological Markers Biopsy BLOOD Budesonide Chest Pain concomitant disease Deglutition Disorders Diagnosis Duodenum Endoscopy Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal Eosinophil Eosinophilia Eosinophilic gastroenteritis Esophageal Diseases Esophageal Neoplasms Esophageal Varices Esophagogastroduodenoscopy Esophagus Ethics Committees, Research Fluticasone Food Food Allergy Heartburn Hypersensitivity Impacted Tooth Inhaler Mental Recall Microscopy Operative Surgical Procedures Outpatients Pathologists Patients Stomach Tissues Viscosity
4
Eosinophilic Esophagitis Diagnostic Criteria Study
This was a prospective study at the University of North Carolina from 2009-2012. We enrolled consecutive adults from age 18 to 80 years undergoing outpatient esophagogastroduodenoscopy who had either dysphagia or symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Patients were excluded if they had a known eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorder, including eosinophilic esophagitis, were anticoagulated or having an active GI bleed, had known esophageal varices, esophageal cancer, or prior esophageal surgery, had medical instability precluding enrollment, or were unable to read or understand the consent form. Details of this study design have been previously reported.13 (link)Cases of eosinophilic esophagitis were defined as per consensus guidelines.6 (link),7 (link) Specifically, patients were required to have at least one typical symptom of esophageal dysfunction (dysphagia, food impaction, or heartburn); at least 15 eos/hpf on esophageal biopsy after an 8 week proton pump inhibitor trial (20-40 mg twice daily of any of the available agents, selected at the discretion of the clinician); and other causes of esophageal eosinophilia excluded.6 (link),7 (link) Subjects without eosinophilic esophagitis did not meet these clinical or histologic criteria, but could have other findings or diagnoses. Of note, a non- eosinophilic esophagitis subject could have ≥ 15 eos/hpf attributable to a different cause, such as proton pump inhibitor-responsive esophageal eosinophilia, reflux, achalasia or esophageal dysmotility, infection, etc.7 (link) Samples from the proton pump inhibitor-responsive esophageal eosinophilia patients were analyzed after the proton pump inhibitor trial, and were included in the group of subjects without eosinophilic esophagitis; all of these proton pump inhibitor-responsive esophageal eosinophilia subjects were therefore on proton pump inhibitor. All eosinophilic esophagitis subjects were also on proton pump inhibitor, as per diagnostic guidelines. The other study subjects without eosinophilic esophagitis could be on proton pump inhibitor as clinically indicated at the discretion of their referring provider.
During the endoscopy, a total of five research protocol esophageal biopsies were obtained (two from the proximal, one from the mid, and two from the distal esophagus) to maximize eosinophilic esophagitis diagnostic sensitivity.15 (link) Distal biopsies were obtained 3 cm above the gastroesophageal junction, mid esophageal biopsies were obtained 10 cm above the gastroesophageal junction, and proximal esophageal biopsies were obtained 15 cm above the gastroesophageal junction. Each esophageal biopsy fragment was collected, labelled, processed, and embedded into paraffin separately. Concomitant gastric and duodenal biopsies were used to exclude eosinophilic gastritis or gastroenteritis. At the discretion of the endoscopist, additional clinical biopsies could be taken as needed. The study was approved by the University of North Carolina Institutional Review Board, and subjects provided informed consent prior to endoscopy.
Dellon E.S., Speck O., Woodward K., Covey S., Rusin S., Shaheen N.J, & Woosley J.T. (2014). Distribution and variability of esophageal eosinophilia in patients undergoing upper endoscopy. Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc, 28(3), 383-390.
Publication 2014
Adult Biopsy Deglutition Disorders Diagnosis Duodenum Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal Eosinophilia Eosinophilic Esophagitis Eosinophilic gastritis Eosinophilic gastroenteritis Esophageal Achalasia Esophageal Diseases Esophageal Neoplasms Esophageal Varices Esophagogastric Junction Esophagogastroduodenoscopy Esophagus Ethics Committees, Research Food Gastroenteritis Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Heartburn Hypersensitivity Impacted Tooth Infection Motility Disorders, Esophageal Operative Surgical Procedures Outpatients Paraffin Embedding Patients Proton Pump Inhibitors Stomach
5
Prospective Study of Eosinophilic Esophagitis
This was a prospective cohort study conducted at the University of North Carolina (UNC) between 2009 and 2011. Consecutive adult patients (ages 18–80 years) referred for routine outpatient esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) were recruited from the two UNC GI procedure units. Patients were stratified by indication (dysphagia vs other indications), and enrolled in an approximately 3:1 ratio of dysphagia vs non-dysphagia indications, in order to enrich the study pool for patients with dysphagia. Subjects were excluded if they had a known (prevalent) diagnosis of EoE or a different eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorder (EGID), GI bleeding, active anticoagulation, known esophageal cancer, prior esophageal surgery, known esophageal varices, medical instability or multiple comorbidities precluding enrollment in the clinical opinion of the endoscopist, or inability to read or understand the consent form. Subjects provided informed consent and were enrolled prior to the endoscopy. This study was approved by the UNC Institutional Review Board.
Subjects with a new (incident) diagnosis of EoE met consensus guidelines (1 (link)). Specifically, cases were required to have at least one typical symptom of esophageal dysfunction (for example dysphagia, food impaction, heartburn, or feeding intolerance); at least 15 eosinophils per high-power field (eos/hpf) on esophageal biopsy persisting after an 8 week PPI trial (20–40 mg twice daily of any of the available agents, prescribed at the discretion of the clinician); and other causes of esophageal eosinophilia excluded. While the majority of the EoE group included subjects who were PPI-naïve on their index endoscopy (n = 24), there were patients who were on high-dose PPI for at least 8 weeks at the time of their index endoscopy (n = 17) who did not have pre-PPI endoscopy or histology data available.
Subjects with PPI-REE were required to have at least one typical symptom of esophageal dysfunction (for example dysphagia, food impaction, heartburn, or feeding intolerance); at least 15 eosinophils per high-power field (eos/hpf) on esophageal biopsy; improvement of esophageal eosinophilia to < 15 eos/hpf after an 8 week PPI trial (20–40 mg twice daily of any of the available agents, prescribed at the discretion of the patient’s clinician); and improvement of symptoms by self-report at the time of the repeat endoscopy. By definition, the PPI-REE group included only subjects who were PPI-naïve at the time of their index endoscopy and required follow-up endoscopy after the PPI trial.
Dellon E.S., Speck O., Woodward K., Gebhart J.H., Madanick R.D., Levinson S., Fritchie K.J., Woosley J.T, & Shaheen N.J. (2013). Clinical and endoscopic characteristics do not reliably differentiate PPI-responsive esophageal eosinophilia and eosinophilic esophagitis in patients undergoing upper endoscopy: A Prospective Cohort Study. The American journal of gastroenterology, 108(12), 1854-1860.
Publication 2013
Adult Biopsy Deglutition Disorders Diagnosis Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal Eosinophilia Eosinophilic gastroenteritis Esophageal Diseases Esophageal Neoplasms Esophageal Varices Esophagogastroduodenoscopy Ethics Committees, Research Food Heartburn Impacted Tooth Operative Surgical Procedures Outpatients Patients

Most recents protocols related to «Esophageal Diseases»

1
Major Abdominal Surgery Fluid Management
We enrolled non-pregnant patients with an ASA-PS 1–3 and a BMI < 35 kg/m2, scheduled for major abdominal surgery with an expected higher intraoperative fluid turnover. Exclusion criteria were symptomatic vascular disease, cardiac rhythm other than sinus, symptomatic cardiac valve disease, restrictive lung disease, and sepsis. Also, patients suffering from esophageal disease of any kind were excluded.
Fukui K., Wirkus J.M., Hartmann E.K., Schmidtmann I., Pestel G.J, & Griemert E.V. (2023). Non-invasive assessment of Pulse Wave Transit Time (PWTT) is a poor predictor for intraoperative fluid responsiveness: a prospective observational trial (best-PWTT study). BMC Anesthesiology, 23, 60.
Full text: Click here
Publication 2023
4-azidosalicylic acid-phosphatidylserine Abdomen Esophageal Diseases Lung Diseases Operative Surgical Procedures Patients Septicemia Sinus, Coronary Valve Disease, Heart Vascular Diseases
2
Outcomes of Spine Fusion in Preterm AIS Patients
The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP)-Pediatric dataset was queried to identify AIS patients who underwent ≥7-level PSF from 2012–2016, using the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-9) code 737.30 and the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes 22,802 and 22,804. The NSQIP variable “PREM_BIRTH” allowed for the identification of patients born before 37 weeks of gestation. Patients from this subset of all operative AIS patients were subsequently propensity score-matched to a cohort of full-term (≥37 weeks) individuals for age, sex, and number of spinal levels fused. Additionally, premature patients were further stratified by World Health Organization (WHO) preterm categories: extremely premature (<28 weeks), very premature (28 ≤ x < 32 weeks), moderate-to-late premature (32 ≤ x < 37 weeks), and term (≥37 weeks).
Age, sex, race, and baseline comorbidities were identified and compared between cohorts. Comorbidities evaluated included history of asthma, bronchopulmonary dysplasia/chronic lung diseases, structural pulmonary/airway abnormalities, esophageal/gastric/intestinal diseases, previous cardiac surgery, developmental delay/impaired cognitive status, seizure disorders, cerebral palsy, structural central nervous system abnormalities, and neuromuscular disorders. Cohorts were also compared for hospital-related and intraoperative variables, including total operative time and length of stay. Rates of complications, readmissions, and reoperations within the 30-day postoperative period were compared. Complications evaluated included superficial surgical site infections (SSI), wound dehiscence, deep space infections, pneumonia, urinary tract infection (UTI), renal insufficiency, transfusion, stroke/cerebrovascular accident, cardiac arrest, pulmonary embolism (PE), unplanned reintubation, acute renal failure, and sepsis.
Comparisons of baseline characteristics, hospital-related parameters, and readmission, reoperation, and complication rates between the premature and term cohorts were computed using appropriate parametric tests. Multivariate logistic regression evaluated independent outcome predictors utilizing prematurity group, age, sex, race, and individual baseline comorbidities as covariates. Univariate analysis with post hoc Bonferroni compared demographics, hospital parameters, and 30-day outcomes. All statistical calculations were performed in SPSS version 24.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA), and the threshold for statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.
Shah N.V., Coste M., Wolfert A.J., Gedailovich S., Ford B., Kim D.J., Kim N.S., Ikwuazom C.P., Patel N., Dave A.M., Passias P.G., Schwab F.J., Lafage V., Paulino C.B, & Diebo B.G. (2023). The Impact of Prematurity at Birth on Short-Term Postoperative Outcomes Following Posterior Spinal Fusion for Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 12(3), 1210.
Full text: Click here
Publication 2023
Asthma Birth Blood Transfusion Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia Cardiac Arrest Cerebral Palsy Cerebrovascular Accident Childbirth Congenital Abnormality Disease, Chronic Disorders, Cognitive Epilepsy Esophageal Diseases Infection Intestines Kidney Failure, Acute Lung Nervous System Abnormality Neuromuscular Diseases Operative Surgical Procedures Patients Pneumonia Pregnancy Premature Birth Pulmonary Embolism Renal Insufficiency Repeat Surgery Second Look Surgery Septicemia Stomach Surgeons Surgical Procedure, Cardiac Surgical Wound Infection Urinary Tract Infection Wounds
3
Gastroesophageal Reflux and Sleep Disturbances
We recruited patients with a history of symptomatic GERD within 3 months and GERD-related sleep disturbances. All patients received an endoscopy within 1 month. They were enrolled if erosive esophagitis was present. Patients were excluded for the following: unable to undergo upper endoscopy; unable to write daily symptom diaries; presence of esophageal stricture, peptic ulcer obstruction, esophageal varices, Barrett’s esophagus, eosinophilic esophagitis, active peptic ulcer, or bleeding during endoscopy; symptoms of primary or secondary esophageal movement disorders; planning to perform surgery or history of receiving surgery that could affect gastric acid secretion (ie, upper gastrectomy, vagotomy, etc); diagnosed with functional dyspepsia, primary esophageal motility disorder, irritable bowel syndrome, or inflammatory bowel disease within 3 months; any condition other than GERD that could be the primary cause of sleep disturbance; known hypersensitivity to antacids, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and PCABs; history of malignancy within 3 years; coexisting diseases; pregnancy or lactation; nightshift work; history of alcohol or drug abuse; anticipated travel beyond 3 time zones; human immunodeficiency virus; use of PPI 14 days before enrollment; unable to discontinue sleep medication, anti-depressants, or anti-anxiety medication during the study period; or at investigator’s discretion. All patients underwent a physical examination, including vital signs, body weight, and routine laboratory evaluation.
Kim J.S., Seo S.I., Kang S.H., Lee S.K., Kim A.R., Park H.W., Kim B.T, & Song G.S. (2023). Effects of Tegoprazan Versus Esomeprazole on Nighttime Heartburn and Sleep Quality in Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: A Multicenter Double-blind Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of Neurogastroenterology and Motility, 29(1), 58-64.
Publication 2023
Acids Antacids Anti-Anxiety Agents Barrett Esophagus Body Weight Breast Feeding Drug Abuse Dyspepsia Dyssomnias Endoscopy Eosinophilic Esophagitis Esophageal Diseases Esophageal Stricture Esophageal Varices Esophagitis Ethanol Gastrectomy Gastric Acid Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease HIV Hypersensitivity Inflammatory Bowel Disease 3 Irritable Bowel Syndrome Juices, Gastric Malignant Neoplasms Motility Disorders, Esophageal Movement Operative Surgical Procedures Patients Peptic Ulcer Pharmaceutical Preparations Physical Examination Pregnancy Proton Pump Inhibitors secretion Signs, Vital Sleep Sleep Disorders Vagotomy
4
Retrospective Study of Gastrostomy Complications
Data collection was carried out retrospectively using the clinical records of the Andalusian Health Service. Until around 2008–2009, medical records were collected on paper and subsequently began to be collected in Digital Medical Records. Written informed consent was obtained from all the patients before the procedure. All the required clinical and ethical guidelines of our center were followed.
The study variables included were: sex, age, date of performance, indication for gastrostomy (head and neck tumours, oesophageal tumours, non-tumoural oesophageal diseases, ALS, other neurological diseases, severe malabsorption, maxillofacial diseases and others), type of gastrostomy, presence of complications, presence of major complications (peritonitis, need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) after the procedure and gastrocolic fistula), presence of minor complications (non-purulent exudate, irritation, burn due to gastric contents, balloon leakage, obstruction of the tube lumen, stoma dilatation, bleeding, granuloma, balloon rupture and/or local infection -as inflammation and purulent exudate with presence of microorganisms in the culture and need for antibiotic treatment-) and death due to gastrostomy complications. The follow-up period ranged from 3 to 24 months until the patient’s loss of follow-up in the Nutrition Unit.
Piñar-Gutiérrez A., Serrano-Aguayo P., Gutiérrez R.V., Rey S.G., González-Navarro I., Tatay-Domínguez D., Garrancho-Domínguez P., Remón-Ruiz P.J., Martínez-Ortega A.J., Mejías V.N., Iglesias-López Á., Socas M., Morales-Conde S., García-Fernández F.J., Bozada-García J.M., Pereira-Cunill J.L, & García-Luna P.P. (2023). Gastrostomies: experience and complications with three modalities in a tertiary centre over a 26-year period. Frontiers in Medicine, 10, 1191204.
Full text: Click here
Publication 2023
Antibiotics Dilatation Esophageal Cancer Esophageal Diseases Exudate Fistula Gastrostomy Granuloma Head and Neck Neoplasms Infection Inflammation Malabsorption Syndrome Mechanical Ventilation Neoplasms Nervous System Disorder Patients Peritonitis Stomach Contents Surgical Stoma Tubal Obstruction
5
Assessing Esophageal Cancer Prognosis
Data on the continuous variables are expressed as the median (interquartile range [IQR]). All statistical analyses were performed with EZR ver1.41 (Saitama Medical Center, Jichi Medical University, Saitama, Japan).[25 (link)] The hazard ratio (HR) of clinical parameters on OS after esophagectomy was investigated using univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazard analyses. In the Cox proportional hazard analyses, clinical parameters included age, gender, body mass index, clinical tumor, nodal, metastasis stage, and response to neoadjuvant therapy according to Japanese Society for Esophageal Disease criteria,[26 ] FEV1/FVC ratio, Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) of total score of weighted comorbidities, and LAA%. Estimates of the receiver operating curve are used to determine the cutoff value for death of LAA%, and the binary value is then inserted into Cox proportional hazard analyses. Clinically relevant factors with P values < .1 in a Cox proportional hazard model with univariable analysis were considered potential risk factors and were further investigated using a multivariable Cox hazard model. The results of the Cox proportional hazards analysis are shown as HRs with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). P values < .05 were deemed statistically significant.
Mizusawa H., Shiraishi O., Shiraishi M., Sugiya R., Kimura T., Ishikawa A., Yasuda T, & Higashimoto Y. (2023). Quantitative emphysema on computed tomography imaging of chest is a risk factor for prognosis of esophagectomy: A retrospective cohort study. Medicine, 102(41), e35547.
Full text: Click here
Publication 2023
Esophageal Diseases Esophagectomy Gender Index, Body Mass Japanese Neoadjuvant Therapy Neoplasm Metastasis Neoplasms Properdin

Top products related to «Esophageal Diseases»

1
Sas version 9 by SAS Institute
Sourced in United States, Austria, Japan, Cameroon, Germany, United Kingdom, Canada, Belgium, Israel, Denmark, Australia, New Caledonia, France, Argentina, Sweden, Ireland, India
SAS version 9.4 is a statistical software package. It provides tools for data management, analysis, and reporting. The software is designed to help users extract insights from data and make informed decisions.
2
Expression console software by Thermo Fisher Scientific
Sourced in United States, Japan, Sweden
Expression Console software is a core analysis tool that enables users to visualize and analyze data from a variety of gene expression experiments. The software provides a user-friendly interface for organizing, processing, and interpreting gene expression data.
3
Gif 290 by Olympus
Sourced in Japan
The GIF 290 is a general-purpose laboratory instrument designed for basic imaging and analysis tasks. It features a high-resolution CCD camera and advanced imaging software for capturing and processing digital images of samples. The core function of the GIF 290 is to provide researchers and technicians with a reliable and versatile tool for visual inspection and documentation of various specimens.
4
Transparent cap by Olympus
Sourced in Japan
The Transparent Cap is a laboratory accessory that provides a clear, protective cover for various types of laboratory equipment and containers. Its core function is to allow visual inspection of the contents while maintaining a sealed environment.
5
Triangle tip knife by Olympus
Sourced in Japan, Germany
The Triangle-tip knife is a laboratory tool designed for precise cutting and slicing tasks. It features a triangular-shaped blade that provides a sharp, precise edge for accurate and controlled cuts. The knife is made of high-quality materials to ensure durability and reliability in a laboratory setting.
6
Hybridknife by Erbe
Sourced in Germany, Japan
The HybridKnife is a versatile laboratory equipment designed for precise cutting and dissection tasks. It combines both mechanical and thermal cutting capabilities, allowing users to seamlessly transition between different cutting methods as required by their specific application.
7
Carescape r860 by GE Healthcare
Sourced in United States
The CARESCAPE R860 is a ventilator designed for use in critical care settings. It provides respiratory support for patients who require mechanical ventilation. The device is capable of delivering a range of ventilation modes and features advanced monitoring capabilities to aid clinicians in patient management.
8
Microspin columns by Harvard Apparatus
Sourced in United States
Microspin columns are a type of laboratory equipment used for the purification and separation of biomolecules, such as proteins, nucleic acids, and other macromolecules. These columns are designed to facilitate the efficient and rapid processing of small sample volumes, making them a versatile tool for various applications in biochemistry, molecular biology, and analytical chemistry.
9
Bv 29 by Philips
The BV 29 is a laboratory equipment product manufactured by Philips. It is designed to perform specific functions within a laboratory setting.

More about "Esophageal Diseases"

Esophageal Disorders: Exploring the Complexities of the Esophageal Tract.
Esophageal diseases encompass a wide range of conditions affecting the esophagus, the muscular tube that connects the throat to the stomach.
These disorders can impair the esophagus's ability to function properly, leading to symptoms such as difficulty swallowing (dysphagia), chest pain, and heartburn (acid reflux).
Common esophageal diseases include gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), Barrett's esophagus, esophageal cancer, and motility disorders like achalasia.
Effective management of these esophageal conditions often requires a multidisciplinary approach, combining medication, dietary changes, and in some cases, surgical intervention.
Understanding the latest research on optimal treatment protocols is crucial for healthcare providers to deliver high-quality, evidence-based care to patients with esophageal disorders.
Cutting-edge technologies like the SAS version 9.4, Expression Console software, GIF 290, Transparent cap, Triangle-tip knife, HybridKnife, CARESCAPE R860, Microspin columns, and BV 29 are revolutionizing the diagnosis and treatment of esophageal diseases.
These advanced tools and techniques are empowering clinicians to better understand the underlying mechanisms of esophageal conditions and develop more effective therapies.
Whether you're a healthcare professional, researcher, or someone affected by an esophageal disease, staying informed about the latest advancements in this field is crucial.
By leveraging the power of AI-driven platforms like PubCompare.ai, you can easily locate the best research protocols and streamline your esophageal disease research process, ultimately leading to improved patient outcomes.