ArticleGastrointestinal endoscopy2012
Validation of the Prague C & M criteria for the endoscopic grading of Barrett's esophagus by gastroenterology trainees: a multicenter study.
Article in Gastrointestinal endoscopy, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
26 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Quality Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand: A Joint Position Statement.Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2025Guideline
- Quality indicators for upper GI endoscopy.Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2025Guideline
- Guideline
- Advances in the Diagnosis of Barrett's Esophagus.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Quality Indicators for Upper GI Endoscopy.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Functional Endoscopy.Digestion · 2024Review
- Usefulness of Endoscopy for the Detection and Diagnosis of Primary Esophageal Motility Disorders and Diseases Relating to Abnormal Esophageal Motility.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Endoscopic diagnosis and screening of Barrett's esophagus: Inconsistency of diagnostic criteria between Japan and Western countries.DEN open · 2022Review
- Gastro-esophageal reflux disease and Barrett's esophagus: an overview with an histologic diagnostic approach.Pathologica · 2020Review
- Comparison of two multiband mucosectomy devices for endoscopic resection of Barrett's esophagus-related neoplasia.Surgical endoscopy · 2019Article
- Coregistered optical coherence tomography and frequency-encoded multispectral imaging for spectrally sparse color imaging.Journal of biomedical optics · 2019Article
- Endoscopic management of esophageal cancer.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2019Review
- How Should We Report Endoscopic Results in Patient's with Barrett's Esophagus?Digestive diseases and sciences · 2018Review
- Development of Quality Indicators for Endoscopic Eradication Therapies in Barrett's Esophagus: The TREAT-BE (Treatment With Resection and Endoscopic Ablation Techniques for Barrett's Esophagus) Consortium.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2017Review
- Evolving management of metaplasia and dysplasia in Barrett's epithelium.World journal of gastroenterology · 2016Review
- Monitoring the premalignant potential of Barrett's oesophagus'.Frontline gastroenterology · 2016Review
- Performance measures for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: A European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy quality improvement initiative.United European gastroenterology journal · 2016Review
- Application of the Prague C and M criteria for endoscopic description of columnar-lined esophagus in South Korea.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2016Article
- BOB CAT: A Large-Scale Review and Delphi Consensus for Management of Barrett's Esophagus With No Dysplasia, Indefinite for, or Low-Grade Dysplasia.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2015Review
- Recurrent intestinal metaplasia after radiofrequency ablation for Barrett's esophagus: endoscopic findings and anatomic location.Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Prague C & M criteria, developed for the endoscopic grading of Barrett's esophagus (BE), (C = circumferential length, M = maximal length) were previously validated among a panel of 29 expert endoscopists with a special interest in BE. Its performance among gastroenterology trainees is unknown.
objectiveTo test interobserver agreement among gastroenterology trainees for the Prague C & M criteria, identification of the gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) and the diaphragmatic hiatus.
designA prospective study.
settingTwo tertiary referral centers. PATIENTS AND
interventionsStandardized endoscopic videos were used. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Interobserver agreement.
resultsEighteen high-quality videos (normal esophagus, short and long lengths of BE, equally distributed) were independently evaluated by 18 gastroenterology trainees (year 1, n = 5; year 2, n = 6; year 3, n = 7) after administration of a formal teaching module by an expert endoscopist. Overall intraclass correlation coefficients for assessment of the C and M extent of the endoscopic BE segment above the GEJ were 0.94 (95% CI, 0.89-0.98) and 0.96 (95% CI, 0.94-0.98), respectively. The overall intraclass correlation coefficients for GEJ and diaphragmatic hiatus location recognition were 0.92 (0.86-0.96) and 0.90 (0.82-0.95), respectively. The year of training did not affect interobserver agreement. LIMITATIONS: The use of videos for endoscopic evaluation.
conclusionAfter standardized teaching, the Prague C & M criteria have high overall validity among gastroenterology trainees irrespective of the level of training for endoscopic evaluation of visualized BE lengths as well as key endoscopic landmarks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.