Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25488897›Full record

Trial reportThe American journal of gastroenterology2015

A randomized comparative effectiveness trial of novel endoscopic techniques and approaches for Barrett's esophagus screening in the community.

Sarmed S Sami, Kelly T Dunagan, Michele L Johnson, Cathy D Schleck, Nilay D Shah, Alan R Zinsmeister, Louis-Michel Wongkeesong, Kenneth K Wang, David A Katzka, Krish Ragunath and 1 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in The American journal of gastroenterology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01288612 (Comparative Effectiveness of Endoscopic Assessment of Gastroesophageal Reflux and Barretts Esophagus), which is not on this map. Cited by 63 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
63citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT01288612 nacompletednot on this map

Comparative Effectiveness of Endoscopic Assessment of Gastroesophageal Reflux and Barretts Esophagus

TypeinterventionalSponsorMayo ClinicRan2011 to 2013Enrolled459ConditionsBarrett's EsophagusArmsSedated Endoscopy, Transnasal Endoscopy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

63 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Prevalence of Barrett's Esophagus and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma With and Without Gastroesophageal Reflux: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Guideline on screening for esophageal adenocarcinoma in patients with chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2020
    Guideline
  6. ACG Clinical Guideline: Diagnosis and Management of Barrett's Esophagus.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2016
    Guideline
  7. Trial
  8. Screening for Barrett's esophagus and esophageal adenocarcinoma: recent advances and next steps.Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus · 2026
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Endoscopic Screening of Barrett's Esophagus.Gastrointestinal endoscopy clinics of North America · 2026
    Review
  11. Carcinoma of Esophagus.Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2025
    Review
  12. New Approaches to Screening for Barrett Esophagus.Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2025
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. New Techniques to Screen for Barrett Esophagus.Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2023
    Article

3 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Sarmed S SamiNottingham Digestive Diseases Centre and NIHR Biomedical Research Unit, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Kelly T DunaganBarrett's Esophagus Unit, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Michele L JohnsonBarrett's Esophagus Unit, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Cathy D SchleckDivision of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Nilay D ShahDivision of Health Care Policy and Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Alan R ZinsmeisterDivision of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Louis-Michel WongkeesongBarrett's Esophagus Unit, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Kenneth K WangBarrett's Esophagus Unit, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
David A KatzkaBarrett's Esophagus Unit, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Krish RagunathNottingham Digestive Diseases Centre and NIHR Biomedical Research Unit, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Prasad G IyerBarrett's Esophagus Unit, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.

Funding

Mayo Clinic Center for Translational Science ActivitiesUL1TR000135 · NCATS · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI KHOSLA, SUNDEEP · 2012 to 2015
$41.2M
Comparative Effectiveness of endoscopic assessment of GER and BERC4DK090413 · NIDDK · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI IYER, PRASAD G. · 2010 to 2012
$1.0M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000135NIDDK NIH HHS RC4 DK090413NIDDK NIH HHS RC4DK090413
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe objective of this study was to compare participation rates and clinical effectiveness of sedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy (sEGD) and unsedated transnasal endoscopy (uTNE) for esophageal assessment and Barrett's esophagus (BE) screening in a population-based cohort.

methodsThis was a prospective, randomized, controlled trial in a community population. Subjects ≥50 years of age who previously completed validated gastrointestinal symptom questionnaires were randomized (stratified by age, sex, and reflux symptoms) to one of three screening techniques (either sEGD or uTNE in a mobile research van (muTNE) or uTNE in a hospital outpatient endoscopy suite (huTNE)) and invited to participate.

resultsOf the 459 subjects, 209 (46%) agreed to participate (muTNE n=76, huTNE n=72, and sEGD n=61). Participation rates were numerically higher in the unsedated arms of muTNE (47.5%) and huTNE (45.7%) compared with the sEGD arm (40.7%), but were not statistically different (P=0.27). Complete evaluation of the esophagus was similar using muTNE (99%), huTNE (96%), and sEGD (100%) techniques (P=0.08). Mean recovery times (min) were longer for sEGD (67.3) compared with muTNE (15.5) and huTNE (18.5) (P<0.001). Approximately 80% of uTNE subjects were willing to undergo the procedure again in future. Respectively, 29% and 7.8% of participating subjects had esophagitis and BE.

conclusionsMobile van and clinic uTNE screening had comparable clinical effectiveness with similar participation rates and safety profile to sEGD. Evaluation time with uTNE was significantly shorter. Prevalence of BE and esophagitis in community subjects ≥50 years of age was substantial. Mobile and outpatient unsedated techniques may provide an effective alternative strategy to sEGD for esophageal assessment and BE screening.

Indexed as

AgedBarrett EsophagusEndoscopy, Digestive SystemFemaleHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedProspective StudiesResidence Characteristics

Identifiers

PMID25488897
PMCPMC4387566

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

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.