GyawaliCPYadlapatiRFassR, et al. Updates to the modern diagnosis of GERD: Lyon consensus 2.0. Gut. 2024;73:361-371.
2.
BoeckxstaensGEl-SeragHBSmoutAJKahrilasPJ.Symptomatic reflux disease: the present, the past and the future. Gut. 2014;63:1185-1193.
3.
KosekiMSetltzerECavaliereKLuoYJodorkovskyD.Implications of the updated lyon consensus 2.0 in clinical practice. Foregut. 2024;5:3-11.
4.
GrantRKBrindleWMTaylorCL, et al. Tailoring follow-up endoscopy in patients with severe oesophagitis. Frontline Gastroenterol. 2024;15:117-123.
5.
MalfertheinerPNoconMViethM, et al. Evolution of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease over 5 years under routine medical care–the ProGERD study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2012;35:154-164.
6.
LabenzJNoconMLindT, et al. Prospective follow-up data from the ProGERD study suggest that GERD is not a categorial disease. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101:2457-2462.
7.
ShibliFFassOZTeramotoOM, et al. Esophageal hypocontractile disorders and hiatal hernia size are predictors for long segment barrett’s esophagus. J Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2023;29:31-37.
8.
IsolauriJLuostarinenMIsolauriE, et al. Natural course of gastroesophageal reflux disease: 17-22 year follow-up of 60 patients. Am J Gastroenterol. 1997;92:37-41.
9.
LordRVDeMeesterSRPetersJH, et al. Hiatal hernia, lower esophageal sphincter incompetence, and effectiveness of Nissen fundoplication in the spectrum of gastroesophageal reflux disease. J Gastrointest Surg. 2009;13:602-610.
10.
AbdelmoatyWDunstCFletcherR, et al. The development and natural history of hiatal hernias: a study using sequential barium upper gastrointestinal series. Ann Surg. 2022;275:534-538.
11.
MartínekJBenesMHuclT, et al. Non-erosive and erosive gastroesophageal reflux diseases: no difference with regard to reflux pattern and motility abnormalities. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2008;43:794-800.
12.
RusuRIFoxMRTuckerE, et al. Validation of the Lyon classification for GORD diagnosis: acid exposure time assessed by prolonged wireless pH monitoring in healthy controls and patients with erosive oesophagitis. Gut. 2021;70:2230-2237.
13.
VisaggiPDel CorsoGGyawaliCP, et al. Ambulatory pH-impedance findings confirm that grade B esophagitis provides objective diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Am J Gastroenterol. 2023;118:794-801.
14.
SchwameisKLinBRomanJ, et al. Is pH testing necessary before antireflux surgery in patients with endoscopic erosive esophagitis?J Gastrointest Surg. 2018;22:8-12.
15.
SifrimDRomanSSavarinoE, et al. Normal values and regional differences in oesophageal impedance-pH metrics: a consensus analysis of impedance-pH studies from around the world. Gut. Published online October 9, 2020. doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2020-322627
16.
RichterJEBradleyLADeMeesterTRWuWC.Normal 24-hr ambulatory esophageal pH values. Influence of study center, pH electrode, age, and gender. Dig Dis Sci. 1992;37:849-856.
17.
StreetsCGDeMeesterTR.Ambulatory 24-hour esophageal pH monitoring: why, when, and what to do. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2003;37:14-22.
18.
AyaziSHagenJAZehetnerJ, et al. Day-to-day discrepancy in Bravo pH monitoring is related to the degree of deterioration of the lower esophageal sphincter and severity of reflux disease. Surg Endosc. 2011;25:2219-2223.
19.
CamposGMPetersJHDeMeesterTR, et al. Multivariate analysis of factors predicting outcome after laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication. J Gastrointest Surg. 1999;3:292-300.
20.
FrazzoniLFrazzoniMDe BortoliN, et al. Application of Lyon Consensus criteria for GORD diagnosis: evaluation of conventional and new impedance-pH parameters. Gut. 2022;71:1062-1067.
21.
SchlottmannFAndolfiCHerbellaFA, et al. GERD: Presence and size of hiatal hernia influence clinical presentation, esophageal function, reflux profile, and degree of mucosal injury. Am Surg. 2018;84:978-982.
22.
FeinMRitterMPDeMeesterTR, et al. Role of the lower esophageal sphincter and hiatal hernia in the pathogenesis of gastroesophageal reflux disease. J Gastrointest Surg. 1999;3:405-410.
