ArticleSurgical endoscopy2014
Predicting regression of Barrett's esophagus: results from a retrospective cohort of 1342 patients.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predicting Regression of Barrett's Esophagus-Can All the King's Men Put It Together Again?Biomolecules · 2024Article
- Barrett's esophagus: results from an Italian cohort with tight endoscopic surveillance.Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2022Article
- Trajectories of endoscopic Barrett esophagus: Chronological changes in a community-based cohort.World journal of gastroenterology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionBarrett's esophagus (BE) is the most predictive risk factor for development of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), a malignancy with the fastest increasing incidence in the US. The aim of this study was to investigate differences in exposures, demographics, and comorbidities between regressing and non-regressing patients. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: We retrospectively collected and analyzed data from a cohort of BE patients participating in a single-center study comprised of all patients diagnosed with BE over a 10-year period. We collected information from the patient's electronic medical records regarding demographic data, endoscopic findings, histological findings, exposures, and history of antireflux surgery.
resultsThis study included 1,342 BE patients, 505 (37.6%) of which experienced regression. The regressed group was 52.3% male, while the non-regressing group was 68.3% male (p < 0.001). Mean age was 65.2 ± 12.8 and 62.0 ± 13.1 years for non-regressing and regressing patients, respectively (p < 0.001). No difference was seen in BMI between regressing and non-regressing groups (27.5 ± 5.7 vs. 27.7 ± 5.4, p = 0.52). No difference was seen between groups with respect to PPI use (93.5% non-regressing vs. 94.1% regressed patients, p = 0.70), but regressed patients were more likely to take vitamin D than non-regressing patients (34.1 vs. 42.1%, p = 0.003). Regressed patients had an average segment length of 1.48 cm (±1.58 cm), in contrast to those not regressing (3.58 ± 3.09 cm (p < 0.001)). Interestingly, one patient in the regression group progressed to dysplasia, while 101 of the non-regressing patients progressed to dysplasia/EAC, a result found to be independent of segment length on multivariate analysis (p < 0.001).
conclusionsCurrently, several studies have shown risk factors that can predict progression of non-dysplastic BE, but few investigate predictors for regression. Our study reports several factors that can be used to predict patients who will regress from BE and those who likely will not, tools that will be useful in tailoring therapeutic and surveillance strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24789137What 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.