Trial reportGastrointestinal endoscopy2014
Comparative acceptability of transnasal esophagoscopy and esophageal capsule esophagoscopy: a randomized, controlled trial in veterans.
Trial report in Gastrointestinal endoscopy, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- The global prevalence of Barrett's esophagus: A systematic review of the published literature.United European gastroenterology journal · 2020Pooled it
- Guideline on screening for esophageal adenocarcinoma in patients with chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2020Guideline
- Comparison of patient tolerance and acceptability of magnet-controlled capsule endoscopy and flexible endoscopy in the investigation of dyspepsia.Endoscopy international open · 2022Article
- Public acceptance and uptake of oesophageal adenocarcinoma screening strategies: A mixed-methods systematic review.EClinicalMedicine · 2022Article
- Article
- Novel Screening Alternatives for Barrett Esophagus.Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2020Article
- Review
- Controversies in … capsule endoscopy.Frontline gastroenterology · 2020Article
- Unsedated In-office Transgastrostomy Esophagoscopy to Monitor Therapy in Pediatric Esophageal Disease.Journal of pediatric gastroenterology and nutrition · 2018Article
- Recent Advances in Non-invasive Esophageal Tissue Sampling.Current gastroenterology reports · 2017Review
- Unsedated transnasal esophagoscopy for monitoring therapy in pediatric eosinophilic esophagitis.Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2016Article
- Advances in the endoscopic diagnosis and treatment of Barrett's neoplasia.F1000Research · 2016Review
- Diagnostic and Management Implications of Basic Science Advances in Barrett's Esophagus.Current treatment options in gastroenterology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEGD screening for Barrett's esophagus (BE) is costly, with insufficient evidence to support its effectiveness.
objectiveTo compare acceptance and tolerability of 2 novel, office-based, endoscopic screening techniques done on nonsedated patients.
designRandomized block study design with allocation concealment.
settingOutpatient clinic setting at a Veterans Affairs medical center. PATIENTS: A total of 184 veterans with or without GERD symptoms.
interventionsTransnasal esophagoscopy (TNE) or esophageal capsule esophagoscopy (ECE). MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Acceptance and tolerability of TNE and ECE and effectiveness of BE screening.
resultsEsophageal screening was accepted by 184 of 1210 (15.2%) veterans. The majority were men (96%) and African American (58%), with a mean (± standard deviation) age of 58.9 (± 8.1) years. Five TNE participants (5%) and 2 ECE participants (2%) refused the assigned procedure after randomization (P = .25). Eleven patients (12.6%) randomized to TNE crossed the minimal clinically important threshold for overall procedure tolerability, as opposed to no patients randomized to ECE (P = .001). Effectiveness of BE screening was not significantly different in both procedures (TNE vs ECE = 3.2% vs 5.4%; P = .47). Overall, BE was present in 8 of 75 white participants (10.6%) and in 0 of 107 African American participants (P < .001). LIMITATIONS: The general veteran population may not reflect the screening population for BE.
conclusionDespite a small proportion of veterans expressing interest in esophageal screening, both TNE and ECE were feasible in the outpatient clinic setting and were accepted by >95% of participants who did express an interest. Screening was effective only in white participants. Moderate differences in tolerability between TNE and ECE notwithstanding, cost considerations along with availability of equipment and trained personnel should guide the modality to be used for BE screening.
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.