Trial reportGastrointestinal endoscopy2012
Randomized crossover study comparing efficacy of transnasal endoscopy with that of standard endoscopy to detect Barrett's esophagus.
Trial report in Gastrointestinal endoscopy, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers, 2 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
60 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 115 citations in OpenAlex.
- Unsedated transnasal endoscopy for the detection of Barrett's esophagus: systematic review and meta-analysis.Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus · 2023Pooled it
- ACG Clinical Guideline: Diagnosis and Management of Barrett's Esophagus.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2016Guideline
- Trial
- A randomized comparative effectiveness trial of novel endoscopic techniques and approaches for Barrett's esophagus screening in the community.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2015Trial
- Screening for Barrett's esophagus: results from a population-based survey.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2014Trial
- Comparative Assessment of Patient Preferences and Tolerability in Barrett Esophagus Screening: Results From a Randomized Trial.Journal of clinical gastroenterologyTrial
- Laryngopharyngeal Symptoms and Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Disease: Diagnostic Testing and Clinical Approach Based on the San Diego Consensus.Neurogastroenterology and motility · 2026Review
- Nonendoscopic Screening for Barrett's Esophagus: Current Methods, Evidence, and Future Directions.Gastro hep advances · 2026Review
- Barrett's esophagus: A review.World journal of gastrointestinal pathophysiology · 2025Review
- New Approaches to Screening for Barrett Esophagus.Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2025Article
- Unsedated transnasal endoscopy experience at a tertiary referral center in India.iGIE : innovation, investigation and insights · 2024Article
- Latest Advances in Endoscopic Detection of Oesophageal and Gastric Neoplasia.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Noninvasive tests for eosinophilic esophagitis: Ready for use?Annals of allergy, asthma & immunology : official publication of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology · 2022Review
- Comparison of patient tolerance and acceptability of magnet-controlled capsule endoscopy and flexible endoscopy in the investigation of dyspepsia.Endoscopy international open · 2022Article
- A systematic review of the quality of reporting and risk of bias for randomized crossover trials in digestive disease journals.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2022Review
- Advances in optical gastrointestinal endoscopy: a technical review.Molecular oncology · 2021Review
- Pre-screening for bariatric surgery patients: comparative effectiveness of transnasal endoscopy versus esophagogastroduodenoscopy.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
- Screening for Barrett's Oesophagus: Are We Ready for it?Current treatment options in gastroenterology · 2021Review
- Eosinophilic esophagitis, Barrett's esophagus and esophageal neoplasms in the pediatric patient: a narrative review.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2021Review
- Public Preferences and Predicted Uptake for Esophageal Cancer Screening Strategies: A Labeled Discrete Choice Experiment.Clinical and translational gastroenterology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundUnsedated transnasal endoscopy (TNE) may be safer and less expensive than standard endoscopy (SE) for detecting Barrett's esophagus (BE). Emerging technologies require robust evaluation before routine use.
objectiveTo evaluate the sensitivity, specificity, and acceptability of TNE in diagnosing BE compared with those of SE.
designProspective, randomized, crossover study.
settingSingle, tertiary-care referral center. PATIENTS: This study enrolled consecutive patients with BE or those referred for diagnostic assessment.
interventionAll patients underwent TNE followed by SE or the reverse. Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory short-form questionnaires, a visual analogue scale, and a single question addressing preference for endoscopy type were administered. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Diagnostic accuracy and tolerability of TNE were compared with those of SE.
resultsOf 95 patients randomized, 82 completed the study. We correctly diagnosed 48 of 49 BE cases by TNE for endoscopic findings of columnar lined esophagus compared with the criterion standard, SE, giving a sensitivity and specificity of 0.98 and 1.00, respectively. The BE median length was 3 cm (interquartile range [IQR] 1-5 cm) with SE and 3 cm (IQR 2-4 cm) with TNE, giving high correlations between the two modalities (R(2) = 0.97; P < .001). The sensitivity and specificity for detecting intestinal metaplasia by TNE compared with those by SE was 0.91 and 1.00, respectively. The mean (± standard deviation) post-endoscopy Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory short-form score for TNE (30.0 ± 1.10 standard error of the mean [SEM]) was lower than that for SE (30.7 ± 1.29 SEM), (P = .054). The visual analogue scale scores were no different (P = .07). The majority of patients (59%) expressed a preference for TNE. LIMITATIONS: This is a small study, with limited generalizability, a high prevalence of patients with BE, differential drop-out between the two procedures, and use of sedation.
conclusionTNE is an accurate and well-tolerated method for diagnosing BE compared with SE. TNE warrants further evaluation as a screening tool for BE.
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.