Observational studyMedicine2016
The Prevalence of Barrett Esophagus Diagnosed in the Second Endoscopy: A Retrospective, Observational Study at a Tertiary Center.
Observational study in Medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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 · 2024Pooled it
- Prevalence and Predictors of Barrett's Esophagus After Negative Initial Endoscopy: Analysis From Two National Databases.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2024Article
- Association between hiatal hernia and Barrett's esophagus: an updated meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
At present, we do not know the exact prevalence of Barrett esophagus (BE) developing later in patients without BE in their first endoscopic screening. The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of BE on the second endoscopic examination of patients who had no BE in their first endoscopic examination.The data of the patients older than 18 years who had undergone upper gastrointestinal system endoscopy more than once at the endoscopy unit of our clinic during the last 6 years were retrospectively analyzed.During the last 6 years, 44,936 patients had undergone at least one endoscopic examination. Among these patients, 2701 patients who had more than one endoscopic screening were included in the study. Of the patients, 1276 (47.3%) were females and 1425 (52.7%) were males, with an average age of 54.9 (18-94) years. BE was diagnosed in 18 (0.66%) of the patients who had no BE in the initial endoscopic examination. The patients with BE had reflux symptoms in their medical history and in both endoscopies, they revealed a higher prevalence of lower esophageal sphincter laxity, hiatal hernia, and reflux esophagitis when compared to patients without BE (P < 0.001).Our study showed that in patients receiving no diagnosis of BE on their first endoscopic examination performed for any reason, the prevalence of BE on their second endoscopy within 6 years was very low (0.66%).
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.