{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022641509433962263, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0018867924528301887, 'mean_word_length': 6.073333333333333, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
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

OBJECTIVE:  Non‐erosive reflux disease (NERD) constitutes the majority of patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Esophageal pH monitoring is useful in distinguishing patients with NERD from functional heartburn. The gastroenterologist often faces the dilemma of choosing the most appropriate investigative modality. The wireless Bravo® capsule allows prolonged 48 hour monitoring with improved patient tolerance, but concerns regarding its reduced sensitivity compared to conventional pH catheter have been raised. We compared the prevalence of high esophageal acid exposure and positive symptom correlation profiles (using the symptom index [SI] and symptom association probability [SAP]) in patients who underwent Bravo® compared to patients who underwent conventional pH catheter, and evaluated the efficacy of Bravo® monitoring in a multiracial Asian cohort.