ArticleGastrointestinal endoscopy2018
Costs associated with Barrett's esophagus screening in the community: an economic analysis of a prospective randomized controlled trial of sedated versus hospital unsedated versus mobile community unsedated endoscopy.
Article in Gastrointestinal endoscopy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 3 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
26 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost effectiveness analysis of Barrett's esophagus screening: A systematic review.Best practice & research. Clinical gastroenterology · 2025Pooled it
- Diagnosis and treatment of patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease - a systematic review of cost-effectiveness and economic burden.BMC health services research · 2024Pooled it
- Unsedated transnasal endoscopy for the detection of Barrett's esophagus: systematic review and meta-analysis.Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus · 2023Pooled it
- Unsedated Transnasal Endoscopy for Preoperative Examination of Bariatric Patients: a Prospective Study.Obesity surgery · 2020Trial
- Comparative Assessment of Patient Preferences and Tolerability in Barrett Esophagus Screening: Results From a Randomized Trial.Journal of clinical gastroenterologyTrial
- Pilot study of EsoCheck/EsoGuard for detecting Barrett's esophagus in high-risk patients undergoing hiatal hernia repair.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Endoscopic Screening of Barrett's Esophagus.Gastrointestinal endoscopy clinics of North America · 2026Review
- Nonendoscopic Screening for Barrett's Esophagus: Current Methods, Evidence, and Future Directions.Gastro hep advances · 2026Review
- Barrett's esophagus: A review.World journal of gastrointestinal pathophysiology · 2025Review
- Cost-effective identification of Barrett's esophagus in the community: A first step towards screening.Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2024Article
- Improving esophageal cancer screening across the globe: Translating knowledge into action.Indian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology · 2024Review
- Algorithm Training and Testing for a Nonendoscopic Barrett's Esophagus Detection Test in Prospective Multicenter Cohorts.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2024Article
- 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
- New Techniques to Screen for Barrett Esophagus.Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2023Article
- Unsedated Transnasal Endoscopy: A Safe, Well-Tolerated and Accurate Alternative to Standard Diagnostic Peroral Endoscopy.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2022Review
- Relief Effect of Carbon Dioxide Insufflation in Transnasal Endoscopy for Health Checks-A Prospective, Double-Blind, Case-Control Trial.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Comparative Cost Effectiveness of Reflux-Based and Reflux-Independent Strategies for Barrett's Esophagus Screening.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2021Article
- Screening for Barrett's Oesophagus: Are We Ready for it?Current treatment options in gastroenterology · 2021Review
- Accurate Nonendoscopic Detection of Barrett's Esophagus by Methylated DNA Markers: A Multisite Case Control Study.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2020Article
- Recent advances in understanding and preventing oesophageal cancer.F1000Research · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsData on the economic impact associated with screening for Barrett's esophagus (BE) are limited. As part of a comparative effectiveness randomized trial of unsedated transnasal endoscopy (uTNE) and sedated EGD (sEGD), we assessed costs associated with BE screening.
methodsPatients were randomly allocated to 3 techniques: sEGD or uTNE in a hospital setting (huTNE) versus uTNE in a mobile research van (muTNE). Patients were called 1 and 30 days after screening to assess loss of work (because of the screening procedure) and medical care sought after procedure. Direct medical costs were extracted from billing claims databases. Indirect costs (loss of work for subject and caregiver) were estimated using patient reported data. Statistical analyses including multivariable analysis accounting for comorbidities were conducted to compare costs.
resultsTwo hundred nine patients were screened (61 sEGD, 72 huTNE, and 76 muTNE). Thirty-day direct medical costs and indirect costs were significantly higher in the sEGD than the huTNE and muTNE groups. Total costs (direct medical + indirect costs) were also significantly higher in the sEGD than in the uTNE group. The muTNE group had significantly lower costs than the huTNE group. Adjustment for age, sex, and comorbidities on multivariable analysis did not change this conclusion.
conclusionsShort-term direct, indirect, and total costs of screening are significantly lower with uTNE compared with sEGD. Mobile uTNE costs were lower than huTNE costs, raising the possibility of mobile screening as a novel method of screening for BE and esophageal adenocarcinoma.
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.