ReviewDer Pathologe2012
[Barrett's esophagus. An update].
Review in Der Pathologe, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Gastrointestinal function testing model using a new laryngopharyngeal pH probe (Restech) in patients after Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2021Article
- GERD-Barrett-Adenocarcinoma: Do We Have Suitable Prognostic and Predictive Molecular Markers?Gastroenterology research and practice · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Barrett's esophagus (BE), a well-known complication of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), constitutes a precancerous condition for adenocarcinoma of the distal esophagus. The so-called Barrett's carcinoma shows increasing incidences in countries of the western hemisphere; new data, however, indicate that the rise in incidence is not quite as dramatic as previously assumed. The definition of BE is currently changing: despite good reasons for a purely endoscopic definition of BE, goblet cells are still mandatory for this diagnosis in Germany and the USA. Dysplastic changes in the epithelium are the most important risk factor for the development of Barrett's adenocarcinoma and recently dysplasia was subclassified into a more frequent adenomatous (intestinal) and a non-adenomatous (gastric-foveolar) types. The gold standard for diagnosing dysplasia is still H&E staining. The histological diagnosis of dysplasia is still encumbered by a significant interobserver variability, especially regarding the differentiation between low grade dysplasia and inflammatory/reactive changes and the discrimination between high grade dysplasia and adenocarcinoma. Current data, however, show much higher interobserver agreement in endoscopic resection specimens than in biopsies. Nevertheless, the histological diagnosis of dysplasia should be corroborated by an external second opinion because of its clinical consequences. In endoscopic resections of early Barrett's adenocarcinoma, the pathological report has to include a risk stratification for the likelihood of lymphogenic metastases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22293785What 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.