Slimline vs. glass pH electrodes: What degree of accuracy should we expect?

J. E. Pandolfino*, S. Ghosh, Q. Zhang, M. Heath, T. Bombeck, P. J. Kahrilas

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

13 Scopus citations

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)331-340
Number of pages10
JournalAlimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics
Volume23
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2006

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Hepatology
  • Gastroenterology
  • Pharmacology (medical)

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Slimline vs. glass pH electrodes: What degree of accuracy should we expect?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this