ArticleWorld journal of gastroenterology2016
Risk stratification for malignant progression in Barrett's esophagus: Gender, age, duration and year of surveillance.
Article in World journal of gastroenterology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Navigating Endoscopic Surveillance and Management of Barrett's Esophagus in Elderly Patients: Balancing the Risks and Benefits.Current gastroenterology reports · 2025Review
- Gastrointestinal Tract Disorders in Older Age.Canadian journal of gastroenterology & hepatology · 2019Review
- Adherence to quality indicators and surveillance guidelines in the management of Barrett's esophagus: a retrospective analysis.Endoscopy international open · 2018Article
- Endoscopic therapy for confirmed low-grade dysplasia in Barrett's esophagus.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2018Review
- Barrett's oesophagus: Current controversies.World journal of gastroenterology · 2017Review
- Artificial intelligence in endoscopy: Overview, applications, and future directions.Saudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology AssociationReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo clarify risk based upon segment length, diagnostic histological findings, patient age and year of surveillance, duration of surveillance and gender.
methodsPatients registered with the United Kingdom Barrett's Oesophagus Registry from 9 United Kingdom centers were included. The outcome measures were (1) development of all grades of dysplasia; (2) development of high-grade of dysplasia or adenocarcinoma; and (3) development of adenocarcinoma. Prevalent cases and subjects with < 1 year of follow-up were excluded. The covariates examined were segment length, previous biopsy findings, age at surveillance, duration of surveillance, year of surveillance and gender.
resultsOne thousand and one hundred thirty six patients were included (total 6474 patient-years). Fifty-four patients developed adenocarcinoma (0.83% per annum), 70 developed high-grade dysplasia/adenocarcinoma (1.1% per annum) and 190 developed any grade of dysplasia (3.5% per annum). High grade dysplasia and adenocarcinoma increased with age and duration of surveillance. The risk of low-grade dysplasia development was not dependent on age at surveillance. Segment length and previous biopsy findings were also significant factors for development of dysplasia and adenocarcinoma.
conclusionThe risk of development of low-grade dysplasia is independent of age at surveillance, but high-grade dysplasia and adenocarcinoma were more commonly found at older age. Segment length and previous biopsy findings are also markers of risk. This study did not demonstrate stabilisation of the metaplastic segment with prolonged surveillance.
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.