AIM To define clinical criteria to differentiate eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorder(Eo GD) in the esophagus. METHODS Our criteria were defined based on the analyses of the clinical presentation of eosinophilic esophagitis(Eo E), subepithelial eosinophilic esophagitis(s Eo E) and eosinophilic esophageal myositis(Eo EM), identified by endoscopy, manometry and serum immunoglobulin E levels(s-Ig E), in combination with histological and polymerase chain reaction analyses on esophageal tissue samples.RESULTS In five patients with Eo E, endoscopy revealed longitudinal furrows and white plaques in all, and fixed rings in two. In one patient with s Eo E and four with Eo EM, endoscopy showed luminal compression only. Using manometry, failed peristalsis was observed in patients with Eo E and s Eo E with some variation, while Eo EM was associated with hypercontractile or hypertensive peristalsis, with elevated s-Ig E. Histology revealed the following eosinophils per high-power field values. Eo E = 41.4 ± 7.9 in the epithelium and 2.3 ± 1.5 in the subepithelium; s Eo E = 3 in the epithelium and 35 in the subepithelium(conventional biopsy); Eo EM = none in the epithelium, 10.7 ± 11.7 in the subepithelium(conventional biopsy or endoscopic mucosal resection) and 46.8 ± 16.5 in the muscularis propria(peroral esophageal muscle biopsy). Presence of dilated epithelial intercellular space and downward papillae elongation were specific to Eo E. Eotaxin-3, IL-5 and IL-13 were overexpressed in Eo E.CONCLUSION Based on clinical and histological data, we identified criteria, which differentiated between Eo E, s Eo E and Eo EM, and reflected a different pathogenesis between these esophageal Eo GDs. AIM To define clinical criteria to the analyzes of the clinical presentation of eosinophilic esophagitis (Eo E), subepithelial eosinophilic esophagitis (s Eo E) and eosinophilic esophageal myositis (Eo EM), identified by endoscopy, manometry and serum immunoglobulin E levels (s-Ig E), in combination with histological and polymerase chain reaction analyzes on esophageal tissue samples .RESULTS In five patients with Eo E, endoscopybly furlongs and White plaques in all, and fixed rings in two. In one patient with s Eo E and four with Eo EM, endoscopy showed luminal compression only. Using manometry, failed peristalsis was observed in patients with Eo E and s Eo E with some variation, while Eo EM was associated with hypercontractile or hypertensive peristalsis, with elevated s-Ig E. Histology revealed the following eosinophils per high-power field values. Eo E = 41.4 ± 7.9 in the epithelium and 2.3 ± 1.5 in the subepithelium; s Eo E = 3 in the epithelium and 35 in the subepithelium (conventional biopsy); Eo EM = none in the epithelium, 10.7 ± 11.7 in the subepithelium biopsy or endoscopic mucosal resection) and 46.8 ± 16.5 in the muscularis propria (peroral esophageal muscle biopsy). Presence of dilated epithelial intercellular space and downward papillae elongation were specific to Eo E. Eotaxin-3, IL-5 and IL-13 were overexpressed in Eo E. CONCLUSION Based on clinical and histological data, we identified criteria, which differentiated between Eo E, s Eo E and Eo EM, and reflected a different pathogenesis between these esophageal Eo GDs.