ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2026
Rapid Gastric Emptying: Insights from a Large Cohort Study on a Controversial Disorder.
Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRapid gastric emptying (RGE) is conventionally defined as ≥ 70% emptying of a standardized solid meal at 1 h using gastric emptying scintigraphy (GES). However, this threshold is not universally adopted, and variability exists in how accelerated gastric emptying is defined in practice. We aimed to better characterize patients with conventionally defined RGE as well as those with accelerated emptying not meeting this threshold, and to evaluate what clinical differences exist across varying degrees of accelerated gastric emptying.
methodsWe identified a cohort of 258 adult patients (≥ 18 years old) with increased gastric emptying (≥ 30% emptied at 1 h) at a tertiary medical center. Patients with a history of esophageal, gastric or thoracic surgery were excluded. Patients were stratified into three cohorts based on 1-h gastric emptying percentages: 30-49%, 50-69%, and ≥ 70%. Manual chart review was performed to extract data on demographics, medications, laboratory values, GES indications, and management changes resulting from GES findings.
resultsThe majority of patients (n = 205, 79.4%) were in the 30-49% emptying cohort. Only 10 patients (3.9%) met the conventional threshold of ≥ 70% emptying at 1 h. The most common indications for GES were nausea (39.1%), vomiting (33.7%), and abdominal pain (25.6%), with no statistically significant differences in indications across the 3 cohorts. Furthermore, there were no differences in age, sex, BMI, comorbidities, medications, or management changes between the cohorts.
conclusionsRGE that meets current consensus criteria is uncommon in clinical practice. Clinical characteristics and interventions were similar among cohorts with different degrees of accelerated emptying. The current cutoff of ≥ 70% emptying at 1 h may not represent a clinically distinct phenotype, emphasizing the need for better criteria to guide diagnosis and management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42393488What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.