Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28446978›Full record

ReviewJournal of thoracic disease2017

Optimizing the diagnosis and therapy of Barrett's esophagus.

Juan A Muñoz-Largacha, Hiran C Fernando, Virginia R Litle

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of thoracic disease, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Juan A Muñoz-LargachaDivision of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Hiran C FernandoDivision of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Virginia R LitleDivision of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Boston University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The incidence of Barrett's esophagus (BE) in the Western world has increased over the last decades. BE is considered a premalignant lesion that can progress to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), a highly aggressive malignancy with poor survival rates. The close association between BE and EAC highlights the need for an early diagnosis in order to improve survival and outcomes in this group of patients. Although the evidence for BE screening with conventional endoscopy is controversial and limited by cost-effectiveness studies, screening can be suggested in patients with chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and two or more risk factors for EAC. Less invasive techniques with lower costs and higher acceptability by the patients may be useful for screening in the general population. Several novel techniques have been described to aid in the early diagnosis and management of BE and dysplasia. However, these techniques have shown variable results with higher costs, the need of specific training, and variable inter-observer imaging interpretation, making its widespread implementation problematic. High-definition/high-resolution white-light endoscopy (WLE) continues to be a well-accepted technique for the evaluation and surveillance of patients with BE. Further studies are required in order to establish the efficacy of less invasive methods that can be performed in an outpatient setting for BE screening in higher risk individuals.

Indexed as

Barrett’s esophagus (BE)gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD)

Identifiers

PMID28446978
PMCPMC5384901
OpenAlexW2590328351

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.