Slimline vs. glass pH electrodes: what degree of accuracy should we expect?
- PMID: 16393314
- DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2006.02750.x
Slimline vs. glass pH electrodes: what degree of accuracy should we expect?
Abstract
Background: Ambulatory pH monitoring is considered the gold standard for measuring oesophageal acid exposure, however, data comparing antimony and glass electrodes are limited.
Aim: To compare the accuracy of the Slimline antimony pH monitoring system and a conventional glass electrode catheter pH monitoring system during ambulatory conditions.
Methods: Eighteen subjects (13 males, 23-45 years) underwent simultaneous pH monitoring using the Slimline antimony pH electrode and MIC M3 glass pH electrode pH monitoring systems for 12 h. Acid exposure was analysed and compared by manual extraction of the data onto an excel spreadsheet.
Results: There was no statistical difference in the median per cent time the pH was <4 recorded by the two systems (Slimline, 3%, Glass MIC M3, 2%, P = 0.77) and the correlation was excellent (r = 0.84). The difference in recorded reflux events was also not significantly different between the two systems, with the absolute difference being 23 events (s.d., 26). Point-by-point discrepancy was 28% (s.d., 18%), however, the agreement in terms of reflex events was excellent (Kappa value, 0.89, s.d., 0.09).
Conclusion: Despite substantial point-by-point disagreement, the antimony Slimline pH catheter compares favourably to the Glass MIC M3 pH catheter in terms of measuring standard pH parameters.
Similar articles
-
Comparison of the Bravo wireless and Digitrapper catheter-based pH monitoring systems for measuring esophageal acid exposure.Am J Gastroenterol. 2005 Jul;100(7):1466-76. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2005.41719.x. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005. PMID: 15984967
-
Ambulatory oesophageal pH monitoring: a comparison between antimony, ISFET, and glass pH electrodes.Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010 May;22(5):572-7. doi: 10.1097/MEG.0b013e328333139f. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010. PMID: 20009939 Clinical Trial.
-
Twenty-four-hour esophageal impedance-pH monitoring in healthy preterm neonates: rate and characteristics of acid, weakly acidic, and weakly alkaline gastroesophageal reflux.Pediatrics. 2006 Aug;118(2):e299-308. doi: 10.1542/peds.2005-3140. Epub 2006 Jul 10. Pediatrics. 2006. PMID: 16831894
-
Review article: oesophageal pH monitoring--technologies, interpretation and correlation with clinical outcomes.Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2005 Dec;22 Suppl 3:2-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2005.02710.x. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2005. PMID: 16303031 Review.
-
Prolonged pH monitoring: Bravo capsule.Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2005 Apr;15(2):307-18. doi: 10.1016/j.giec.2004.10.005. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2005. PMID: 15722243 Review.
Cited by
-
Alkaline biodegradable implants for osteoporotic bone defects--importance of microenvironment pH.Osteoporos Int. 2016 Jan;27(1):93-104. doi: 10.1007/s00198-015-3217-8. Epub 2015 Jul 2. Osteoporos Int. 2016. PMID: 26134681
-
New esophageal function testing (impedance, Bravo pH monitoring, and high-resolution manometry): clinical relevance.Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2008 Jun;10(3):222-30. doi: 10.1007/s11894-008-0047-2. Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2008. PMID: 18625130 Review.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources