SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Figure S1. Agreement of positive Symptom Index and Symptom Association Probability using (A) ‘rolling cumulative’ and (B) ‘Worst Day’ analysis.

Table S1. Catheter-based pH-studies (C-pH) recorded significantly less esophageal acid exposure (total reflux; TR) compared with wireless pH-studies (Bravo) at 24, 48, 72 and 96-h. Similar findings were recorded in the upright (UR) and supine (SR) positions. There was no significant, systematic difference between 24, 48, 72 and 96-h wireless pH-studies studies (all comparisons P > 0.1).

Table S2. Esophageal acid exposure in the upright (A) and supine (B) positions. The ‘Average’ (mean) and ‘Worst Day’ analyses are presented for wireless pH-monitoring with positive (Bravo pos) esophageal acid exposure at 24, 48, 72 and 96-h.

Table S3. Symptom Index (SI) calculated for individual symptoms. The ‘Average’ (rolling cumulative assessment) and ‘Worst Day’ (pathologic SI for any symptom rated as positive result) analyses are presented using the ‘last result carried forward’ method. (Bravo, wireless pH-monitoring; HB, heartburn; CP, chest pain).

Table S4. Symptom Association Probability (SAP) calculated for individual symptoms. The ‘Average’ (rolling cumulative assessment) and ‘Worst Day’ (pathologic SAP for any symptom rated as positive result) analyses are presented using the ‘last result carried forward’ method. (Bravo, wireless pH-monitoring; HB, heartburn; CP, chest pain).

FilenameFormatSizeDescription
NMO_1663_sm_fs1.tif29KSupporting info item
NMO_1663_sm_ts1.tif47KSupporting info item
NMO_1663_sm_ts2.tif37KSupporting info item
NMO_1663_sm_ts3.tif106KSupporting info item
NMO_1663_sm_ts4.tif156KSupporting info item

Please note: Wiley Blackwell is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.