Enhanced electrogastrography: A realistic way to salvage a promise that was never kept?

Table 1 Averaged pearson correlation coefficients of the one-minute gastric motility indices per state per capsule type

Modality	State	PCCs proximal FT-proximal	P value	PCCs distal FT-distal	P value
		Cutaneous GMIs		Cutaneous GMIs
EEGG capsule	Baseline	0.763 ± 0.20	< 0.01	0.674 ± 0.47	< 0.01
	After neostigmine	0.731 ± 0.12	< 0.01	0.734 ± 0.14	< 0.01
Sham capsule	Baseline	0.160 ± 0.03	> 0.10	0.071 ± 0.02	> 0.10
	After neostigmine	0.113 ± 0.09	> 0.10	0.051 ± 0.03	> 0.10

PCCs: Pearson correlation coefficients; GMIs: gastric motility indices; EEGG: Enhanced electrogastrography; FT: Force transducer.

Table 2 Averaged cycles per minute of the dominant spectral peaks of the raw force transducer and cutaneous recordings per state per capsule type

Modality	State	Channel	cpm
EEGG capsule	Baseline	FT	2.38 ± 1.20
		EEGG	2.42 ± 1.27
	After neostigmine	FT	3.55 ± 0.94
		EEGG	3.58 ± 0.95
Sham capsule	Baseline	FT	2.65 ± 1.15
		Sham	3.94 ± 1.67
	After neostigmine	FT	3.84 ± 0.91
		Sham	4.12 ± 1.56

FT: Force transducer; EEGG: Enhanced electrogastrography; cpm: Cycles per minute.

Table 3 Statistical comparison between the dominant spectral peaks of the force transducer and enhanced electrogastrography/sham recordings using the paired student t-test

Modality	State	P value
EEGG capsule	Baseline (FT EEGG)	0.048a
	After neostigmine (FT EEGG)	0.049a
Sham capsule	Baseline (FT EGG)	0.92
	After neostigmine (FT EGG)	0.33

^aP < 0.05. FT: Force transducer; EEGG: Enhanced electrogastrography.