Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Comparison of Gastric Alimetry® body surface gastric mapping versus electrogastrography spectral analysis.
Schamberg, Gabriel; Calder, Stefan; Varghese, Chris; Xu, William; Wang, William Jiaen; Ho, Vincent; Daker, Charlotte; Andrews, Christopher N; O'Grady, Greg; Gharibans, Armen A.
Afiliação
  • Schamberg G; Department of Surgery, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
  • Calder S; Alimetry Ltd, Auckland, New Zealand.
  • Varghese C; Department of Surgery, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
  • Xu W; Alimetry Ltd, Auckland, New Zealand.
  • Wang WJ; Department of Surgery, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
  • Ho V; Department of Surgery, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
  • Daker C; School of Medicine, Western Sydney University, Sydney, Australia.
  • Andrews CN; Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Campbelltown Hospital, Sydney, Australia.
  • O'Grady G; Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Townsville University Hospital, Townsville, Australia.
  • Gharibans AA; Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Australia.
Sci Rep ; 13(1): 14987, 2023 09 11.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37696955
ABSTRACT
Electrogastrography (EGG) non-invasively evaluates gastric motility but is viewed as lacking clinical utility. Gastric Alimetry® is a new diagnostic test that combines high-resolution body surface gastric mapping (BSGM) with validated symptom profiling, with the goal of overcoming EGG's limitations. This study directly compared EGG and BSGM to define performance differences in spectral analysis. Comparisons between Gastric Alimetry BSGM and EGG were conducted by protocolized retrospective evaluation of 178 subjects [110 controls; 68 nausea and vomiting (NVS) and/or type 1 diabetes (T1D)]. Comparisons followed standard methodologies for each test (pre-processing, post-processing, analysis), with statistical evaluations for group-level differences, symptom correlations, and patient-level classifications. BSGM showed substantially tighter frequency ranges vs EGG in controls. Both tests detected rhythm instability in NVS, but EGG showed opposite frequency effects in T1D. BSGM showed an 8× increase in the number of significant correlations with symptoms. BSGM accuracy for patient-level classification was 0.78 for patients vs controls and 0.96 as compared to blinded consensus panel; EGG accuracy was 0.54 and 0.43. EGG detected group-level differences in patients, but lacked symptom correlations and showed poor accuracy for patient-level classification, explaining EGG's limited clinical utility. BSGM demonstrated substantial performance improvements across all domains.
Assuntos

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1 Tipo de estudo: Guideline / Observational_studies Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Sci Rep Ano de publicação: 2023 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Nova Zelândia

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1 Tipo de estudo: Guideline / Observational_studies Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Sci Rep Ano de publicação: 2023 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Nova Zelândia