Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23383987›Full record

ReviewDiseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus

Patients' intuitive judgments about surveillance endoscopy in Barrett's esophagus: a review and application to models of decision-making.

M Hinojosa-Lindsey, J Arney, S Heberlig, J R Kramer, R L Street, H B El-Serag, A D Naik

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Decision aids for shared decision-making in Barrett's esophagus surveillance.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2015
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Choosing Wisely and the perceived drivers of endoscopy use.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2013
    Article
  10. Article
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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

M Hinojosa-LindseyHouston VA Health Services Research, Development Center of Excellence, Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, Houston, Texas, USA; Section of Health Services Research, Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA.
J Arney
S Heberlig
J R Kramer
R L Street
H B El-Serag
A D Naik
Health Services Research & Development · USMichael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center · USRice University · US

Funding

Tissue Analysis & Molecular Imaging CoreP30DK056338 · NIDDK · BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE · PI Geoffrey A Preidis · 2001 to 2026
$28.3M
Comparative Effectiveness of Screening and Surveillance EndoscopyRC4CA155844 · NCI · BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE · PI EL-SERAG, HASHEM B · 2010 to 2010
$2.0M
NCI NIH HHS RC4 CA155844NCI NIH HHS RC4CA155844NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK056338
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Adherence to practice guidelines for endoscopic surveillance of Barrett's esophagus is equivocal with evidence of underutilization and overutilization. While physicians report strong agreement with and adherence to recommended surveillance endoscopy (esophagogastroduodenoscopy [EGD]) guidelines, less is known about modifiable barriers and facilitators shaping patients' adherence behaviors. The aim of this study is to conduct a structured literature review of studies exploring patients' perspectives regarding surveillance EGD and to place these results within a conceptual framework. A structured literature review of PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar databases with qualitative thematic analysis was performed. Six studies met eligibility criteria. Analysis of results identified five distinct themes. First, patients' objective cancer risk estimates are consistent with subjective risk perceptions, but neither is associated with EGD surveillance. Second, patients have strong beliefs in the benefits of cancer screening and surveillance and trust in their doctors. Third, anxiety and depression symptoms are related to risk perceptions and outcome expectancies of surveillance. Fourth, endoscopic surveillance itself has affective and physical consequences. Finally, health services and system variables are related to risk perception and EGD surveillance. These themes coherently fit within an integrated model of intuitive decision-making and health behaviors. Studies meeting eligibility criteria were heterogeneous in terms of their study objectives and findings. Quantitative meta-analyses of study findings could not be performed. To improve adherence, endoscopic surveillance programs should consider how patients intuitively frame risks and benefits and patients' emotional reactions to the endoscopy procedure, and focus on how physicians communicate recommendations.

Indexed as

Decision MakingIntuitionAdenocarcinomaBarrett EsophagusEarly Detection of CancerEndoscopy, Digestive SystemEsophageal NeoplasmsEsophagoscopyHumansModels, PsychologicalPatient Acceptance of Health CarePatient CompliancePrecancerous ConditionsBarrett's esophaguscancer surveillancedecision-makingendoscopypatient preferencerisk communication

Identifiers

PMID23383987
PMCPMC3981464
OpenAlexW1510304229

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.