These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
147 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22523719)
1. Is Wireless Capsule pH Monitoring Better Than Catheter Systems? Lee JS J Neurogastroenterol Motil; 2012 Apr; 18(2):117-9. PubMed ID: 22523719 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Wireless esophageal pH monitoring is better tolerated than the catheter-based technique: results from a randomized cross-over trial. Wenner J; Johnsson F; Johansson J; Oberg S Am J Gastroenterol; 2007 Feb; 102(2):239-45. PubMed ID: 17100971 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Wireless capsule pH monitoring: does it fulfil all expectations? Maerten P; Ortner M; Michetti P; Dorta G Digestion; 2007; 76(3-4):235-40. PubMed ID: 18174686 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Wireless pH capsule--yield in clinical practice. Roman S; Mion F; Zerbib F; Benamouzig R; Letard JC; Bruley des Varannes S Endoscopy; 2012 Mar; 44(3):270-6. PubMed ID: 22275050 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Interference with daily activities and major adverse events during esophageal pH monitoring with bravo wireless capsule versus conventional intranasal catheter: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Iluyomade A; Olowoyeye A; Fadahunsi O; Thomas L; Libend CN; Ragunathan K; Fenster J; Vignesh S Dis Esophagus; 2017 Feb; 30(3):1-9. PubMed ID: 26952638 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Comparative study of two modes of gastroesophageal reflux measuring: conventional esophageal pH monitoring and wireless pH monitoring. Azzam RS; Sallum RA; Brandão JF; Navarro-Rodriguez T; Nasi A Arq Gastroenterol; 2012; 49(2):107-12. PubMed ID: 22766996 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 24 Versus 48-hour bravo pH monitoring. Chander B; Hanley-Williams N; Deng Y; Sheth A J Clin Gastroenterol; 2012 Mar; 46(3):197-200. PubMed ID: 21959323 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. WIRELESS PH MONITORING AND CONVENTIONAL ESOPHAGEAL PH MONITORING: COMPARATIVE STUDY OF DISCOMFORT, LIMITATIONS IN DAILY ACTIVITIES AND COMPLICATIONS. Azzam RS; Azzam GB; Nasi A Arq Bras Cir Dig; 2021; 34(1):e1566. PubMed ID: 34008710 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Feasibility and tolerability of transnasal/per-oral placement of the wireless pH capsule vs. traditional 24-h oesophageal pH monitoring--a randomized trial. Wong WM; Bautista J; Dekel R; Malagon IB; Tuchinsky I; Green C; Dickman R; Esquivel R; Fass R Aliment Pharmacol Ther; 2005 Jan; 21(2):155-63. PubMed ID: 15679765 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Traditional vs wireless intragastric pH monitoring: are the two techniques comparable? Caparello C; Bravi I; Cantù P; Grigolon A; Tenca A; Mauro A; Penagini R Neurogastroenterol Motil; 2012 Oct; 24(10):951-e464. PubMed ID: 22716102 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. A novel placement method of the Bravo wireless pH monitoring capsule for measuring intragastric pH. Chang JH; Choi MG; Yim DS; Cho YK; Park JM; Lee IS; Kim SW; Chung IS Dig Dis Sci; 2009 Mar; 54(3):578-85. PubMed ID: 18649136 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Impact of prolonged 48-h wireless capsule esophageal pH monitoring on diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease and evaluation of the relationship between symptoms and reflux episodes. Domingues GR; Moraes-Filho JP; Domingues AG Arq Gastroenterol; 2011; 48(1):24-9. PubMed ID: 21537538 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. [Efficacy, diagnostic utility and tolerance of intraesophageal pH ambulatory determination with wireless pH-testing monitoring system]. Carmona-Sánchez R; Solana-Sentíes S Rev Gastroenterol Mex; 2004; 69(2):69-75. PubMed ID: 15757154 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Tolerance and reliability of wireless pH monitoring in children. Hochman JA; Favaloro-Sabatier J J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr; 2005 Oct; 41(4):411-5. PubMed ID: 16205507 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]