No abstract

No abstract

Background: Ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) is the most common esophageal motility disorder associated with low-to-moderate amplitude contractions in the distal esophagus in manometric evaluations. Despite recent new conceptions regarding the pathophysiology of esophageal motility and IEM, there are still no effective therapeutic interventions for the treatment of this disorder. This study aimed to investigate the effect of buspirone in the treatment of concomitant IEM and GERD. Methods and Materials: The present study was a randomized clinical trial conducted at the Imam Khomeini Hospital, Tehran. Patients with a history of gastroesophageal reflux disease and dysphagia underwent upper endoscopy to rule out any mechanical obstruction and were diagnosed with an ineffective esophageal motility disorder based on high-resolution manometry. They were given a package containing the desired medication(s); half of the packets contained 10 mg (for 30 days) of buspirone and 40 mg (for 30 days) of pantoprazole, and the other half contained only 40 mg (for 30 days) of pantoprazole. Dysphagia was scored based on the Mayo score, as well as a table of dysphagia severity. Manometric variables were recorded before and after the treatment. Results: Thirty patients (15 pantoprazole and 15 pantoprazole plus buspirone) were included. Females comprised 63.3% of the population, with a mean age of 46.33 ± 11.15. The MAYO score and resting LES pressure significantly changed after treatment. The MAYO and Swallowing Disorder Questionnaire scores significantly decreased after treatment in both groups of patients. Our results revealed that the post-intervention values of manometric variables differed significantly between the two groups after controlling for the baseline values of the variables. This analysis did not demonstrate the superiority of buspirone. Conclusion: Buspirone seems to have no superiority over PPI. Treatment with concomitant IEM and GERD using proton pump inhibitors improves the patient’s clinical condition and quality of life. However, adding buspirone to the treatment regimen did not appear to make a significant difference in patient treatment.

Background and Objective Decision-making in the medical profession is full of uncertainty. This review aimed to identify cognitive errors associated with physicians’ decisions. Materials & Method PubMed and Medline databases were searched for English articles on cognitive biases published from 2000 to 2022. Among 235 found publications, 19 met the inclusion criteria. Results Of the 19 analyzed studies, 40 cognitive errors were extracted, and 11 cognitive errors had maximum repetitions. These are availability, confirmation, overconfidence, anchoring, framing effect, omission, search satisficing, representativeness, premature closure, diagnosis momentum, and commission. Conclusion In medical students’ curricula, moral and clinical decision-making are marginalized by teaching professors. However, teaching humanities, psychology, and even literature are required, along with critical thinking and cognitive errors. Understanding cognitive errors are the first step towards training cognition strategies, which may improve patient safety. To reduce medical errors and their huge loss of life and money, the causes of medical errors must be known. Cognitive errors are among them, and by reducing cognitive errors, medical decision-making can be improved.