Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20353441›Full record

ArticleDiseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus2010

The prevalence of Barrett's esophagus in the US: estimates from a simulation model confirmed by SEER data.

T J Hayeck, C Y Kong, S J Spechler, G S Gazelle, C Hur

Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03191604 (A Multicenter Study Evaluating the Impact of NBI on Patients With Barrett's Esophagus Associated Neoplasia Undergoing Endoscopic Eradication Therapy), which is not on this map. Cited by 78 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
78citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
8.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT03191604 completednot on this mapstarted 2017, after this paper: background citation

A Multicenter Study Evaluating the Impact of NBI on Patients With Barrett's Esophagus Associated Neoplasia Undergoing Endoscopic Eradication Therapy (EET)

TypeobservationalSponsorNorthwestern UniversityRan2017 to 2019Enrolled46ConditionsBarrett EsophagusArmsVideo intervention
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

78 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 201 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Cost effectiveness analysis of Barrett's esophagus screening: A systematic review.Best practice & research. Clinical gastroenterology · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Impact of enhanced recovery program on patients with esophageal cancer in comparison with traditional care.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2017
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Screening for Barrett's esophagus and esophageal adenocarcinoma: recent advances and next steps.Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus · 2026
    Review
  6. Emerging Biomarkers for Managing Barrett's Esophagus.Gastrointestinal endoscopy clinics of North America · 2026
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Computing lifetime incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma and age-specific prevalence of Barrett's esophagus.Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Reasons for fear of cancer recurrence after endoscopic treatment of T1 esophageal adenocarcinoma. A semi-structured interview study.Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Barrett's Esophagus: An Updated Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  20. High rate of missed Barrett's esophagus when screening with forceps biopsies.Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 2023
    Article

18 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

T J HayeckInstitute for Technology Assessment, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
C Y Kong
S J Spechler
G S Gazelle
C Hur
Harvard University · USCenter for Assessment · USMassachusetts General Hospital · USThe University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center · US

Funding

Improving Esophageal Adenocarcinoma Prevention, Screening and TreatmentR01CA140574 · NCI · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI HUR, CHIN · 2010 to 2018
$3.4M
Applications of Multi-Criteria Optimization (AMCO) to Cancer Simulation ModelingK25CA133141 · NCI · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI KONG, CHUNG YIN · 2009 to 2013
$844k
The Prevention of Esophageal AdenocarcinomaK07CA107060 · NCI · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI HUR, CHIN · 2005 to 2009
$701k
Advancing an Evidence-Based Approach to Barrett's Esophagus: A Health Outcomes ReR13DK079674 · NIDDK · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI HUR, CHIN · 2007 to 2007
$10k
NCI NIH HHS CA107060NCI NIH HHS K07 CA107060NCI NIH HHS R01 CA140574NIDDK NIH HHS R13 DK079674
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Barrett's esophagus (BE) is the precursor and the biggest risk factor for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), the solid cancer with the fastest rising incidence in the US and western world. Current strategies to decrease morbidity and mortality from EAC have focused on identifying and surveying patients with BE using upper endoscopy. An accurate estimate of the number of patients with BE in the population is important to inform public health policy and to prioritize resources for potential screening and management programs. However, the true prevalence of BE is difficult to ascertain because the condition frequently is symptomatically silent, and the numerous clinical studies that have analyzed BE prevalence have produced a wide range of estimates. The aim of this study was to use a computer simulation disease model of EAC to determine the estimates for BE prevalence that best align with US Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) cancer registry data. A previously developed mathematical model of EAC was modified to perform this analysis. The model consists of six health states: normal, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), BE, undetected cancer, detected cancer, and death. Published literature regarding the transition rates between these states were used to provide boundaries. During the one million computer simulations that were performed, these transition rates were systematically varied, producing differing prevalences for the numerous health states. Two filters were sequentially applied to select out superior simulations that were most consistent with clinical data. First, among these million simulations, the 1000 that best reproduced SEER cancer incidence data were selected. Next, of those 1000 best simulations, the 100 with an overall calculated BE to Detected Cancer rates closest to published estimates were selected. Finally, the prevalence of BE in the final set of best 100 simulations was analyzed. We present histogram data depicting BE prevalences for all one million simulations, the 1000 simulations that best approximate SEER data, and the final set of 100 simulations. Using the best 100 simulations, we estimate the prevalence of BE to be 5.6% (5.49-5.70%). Using our model, an estimated prevalence for BE in the general population of 5.6% (5.49-5.70%) accurately predicts incidence rates for EAC reported to the US SEER cancer registry. Future clinical studies are needed to confirm our estimate.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaBarrett EsophagusComputer SimulationEsophageal NeoplasmsHumansModels, TheoreticalPrevalenceSEER ProgramUnited States

Identifiers

PMID20353441
PMCPMC2896446
OpenAlexW1591567663

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.