236 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26952638)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. Oesophageal pH monitoring using the Bravo catheter-free radio capsule.
Gillies RS; Stratford JM; Booth MI; Dehn TC
Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol; 2007 Jan; 19(1):57-63. PubMed ID: 17206078
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Accuracy and tolerability of the Bravo catheter-free pH capsule in patients between the ages of 4 and 18 years.
Croffie JM; Fitzgerald JF; Molleston JP; Gupta SK; Corkins MR; Pfefferkorn MD; Lim JR; Steiner SJ; Dadzie SK
J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr; 2007 Nov; 45(5):559-63. PubMed ID: 18030233
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Performance, tolerability, and symptoms related to prolonged pH monitoring using the Bravo system in Mexico.
Remes-Troche JM; Ibarra-Palomino J; Carmona-Sánchez RI; Valdovinos MA
Am J Gastroenterol; 2005 Nov; 100(11):2382-6. PubMed ID: 16279888
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. [Catheter-free pH-metry using the Bravo capsule versus standard pH-metry in patients with non-erosive reflux disease (NERD)].
Mönkemüller K; Neumann H; Fry LC; Kolfenbach S; Malfertheiner P
Z Gastroenterol; 2009 Apr; 47(4):351-6. PubMed ID: 19358061
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. Safety and Efficacy of Wireless pH Monitoring in Patients Suspected of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: A Systematic Review.
Kessels SJM; Newton SS; Morona JK; Merlin TL
J Clin Gastroenterol; 2017 Oct; 51(9):777-788. PubMed ID: 28877081
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Ambulatory pH: monitoring with a wireless system.
Schneider JH; Kramer KM; Königsrainer A; Granderath FA
Surg Endosc; 2007 Nov; 21(11):2076-80. PubMed ID: 17484003
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Wireless esophageal pH capsule for patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease: a multicenter clinical study.
Yang XJ; Gan T; Wang L; Liao Z; Tao XH; Shen W; Zhao XY
World J Gastroenterol; 2014 Oct; 20(40):14865-74. PubMed ID: 25356046
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Day-to-day variability in acid reflux patterns using the BRAVO pH monitoring system.
Ahlawat SK; Novak DJ; Williams DC; Maher KA; Barton F; Benjamin SB
J Clin Gastroenterol; 2006 Jan; 40(1):20-4. PubMed ID: 16340628
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 48-Hour pH monitoring increases the risk of false positive studies when the capsule is prematurely passed.
Iqbal A; Lee YK; Vitamvas M; Oleynikov D
J Gastrointest Surg; 2007 May; 11(5):638-41. PubMed ID: 17468923
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. To Bravo or not? A comparison of wireless esophageal pH monitoring and conventional pH catheter to evaluate non-erosive gastroesophageal reflux disease in a multiracial Asian cohort.
Ang D; Teo EK; Ang TL; Ong J; Poh CH; Tan J; Fock KM
J Dig Dis; 2010 Feb; 11(1):19-27. PubMed ID: 20132427
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Nonendoscopic transnasal placement of a wireless capsule for esophageal pH monitoring: feasibility, safety, and efficacy of a manometry-guided procedure.
Marchese M; Spada C; Iacopini F; Familiari P; Shah SG; Tringali A; Costamagna G
Endoscopy; 2006 Aug; 38(8):813-8. PubMed ID: 17001571
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Patients with functional heartburn are more likely to report retrosternal discomfort during wireless pH monitoring.
Lee YC; Wang HP; Chiu HM; Huang SP; Tu CH; Wu MS; Lin JT
Gastrointest Endosc; 2005 Dec; 62(6):834-41. PubMed ID: 16301022
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Use and utility of the Bravo pH capsule.
Pandolfino JE; Kwiatek MA
J Clin Gastroenterol; 2008; 42(5):571-8. PubMed ID: 18364590
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 24-h multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring may be an inadequate test for detecting gastroesophageal reflux in patients with mixed typical and atypical symptoms.
Han MS; Lada MJ; Nieman DR; Tschoner A; Peyre CG; Jones CE; Watson TJ; Peters JH
Surg Endosc; 2015 Jul; 29(7):1700-8. PubMed ID: 25398192
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
