Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28809387›Full record

ArticleThe American journal of gastroenterology2017

Accuracy and Safety of the Cytosponge for Assessing Histologic Activity in Eosinophilic Esophagitis: A Two-Center Study.

David A Katzka, Thomas C Smyrk, Jeffrey A Alexander, Debra M Geno, RoseMary A Beitia, Audrey O Chang, Nicholas J Shaheen, Rebecca C Fitzgerald, Evan S Dellon

Erratum issued 5 registry-linked trialsOpen access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in The American journal of gastroenterology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to 5 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 53 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
9.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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.

NCT01585103 naterminatednot on this map

Cytosponge Protocol

TypeinterventionalSponsorMayo ClinicRan2012 to 2016Enrolled86ConditionsEosinophilic EsophagitisArmsCytosponge
NCT02114606 naterminatednot on this map

Diagnosis and Monitoring of Eosinophilic Esophagitis Using the Cytosponge

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of North Carolina, Chapel HillRan2015 to 2016Enrolled86ConditionsEosinophilic Esophagitis, EoEArmsCytosponge™ Cell Collection Device
NCT04311970 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

Pilot Study of EsoCheck Compared to Biopsies and Brush Cytology During Endoscopy for Evaluation of Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of PennsylvaniaRan2020 to 2021Enrolled12ConditionsEosinophilic Esophagitis, Diagnoses DiseaseArmsEsoCheck
NCT05342168 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Comparison of Histological Results Obtained From a Mesh Sponge (CytospongeTM) and Traditional Esophageal Mucosal Biopsies in Children and Adolescents With Eosinophilic Esophagitis

TypeinterventionalSponsorThe Hospital for Sick ChildrenRan2022 to 2023Enrolled30ConditionsEosinophilic EsophagitisArmsUsing a swallowed expanding sponge (Cytosponge TM) to obtain sampling of the esophageal musosa
NCT06501274 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

A Pragmatic Interventional Study to Assess the Clinical Value of Capsule Sponge in the Assessment of Response to Treatment of Non-stenotic Eosinophilic Oesophagitis in a Single District General Hospital

TypeinterventionalSponsorEast and North Hertfordshire NHS TrustRan2023 to 2025Enrolled143ConditionsEosinophilic EsophagitisArmscapsule sponge
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

53 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 110 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Emerging Tissue and Blood Biomarkers for Eosinophilic Esophagitis.Gastroenterology clinics of North America · 2026
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. [Eosinophilic esophagitis].Innere Medizin (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Dietary Management of Eosinophilic Esophagitis.Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2023
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Diagnosis and Management of Barrett's Esophagus.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

David A KatzkaDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Thomas C SmyrkDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Jeffrey A AlexanderDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Debra M GenoDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
RoseMary A BeitiaDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Audrey O ChangDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Nicholas J ShaheenDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Rebecca C FitzgeraldDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Evan S DellonDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Mayo Clinic · USWinnMed · US

Funding

SHORT-TERM RESEARCH TRAININGT35DK007386 · NIDDK · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI Evan Samuel Dellon · 1986 to 2026
$4.1M
Cancer Research UK 12088Medical Research Council MC_U105365007NIDDK NIH HHS T35 DK007386
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesManagement of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) requires repeated endoscopic mucosal sampling to assess disease activity. A less invasive and expensive means of monitoring of EoE is required. The objective of this study was to assess the accuracy, safety, and tolerability of the cytosponge compared to endoscopy and biopsy for histologic assessment of EoE.

methodsIn this prospective two-center cross-sectional study, patients with known EoE underwent cytosponge sampling followed by endoscopy and biopsy. Sample adequacy and eosinophil counts (eos/HPF) were determined for both cytosponge and endoscopic samples. The cytosponge was assessed for diagnostic accuracy, safety, and patient preference as compared to endoscopy.

resultsSix patients (7%) failed to swallow the sponge. One hundred and five procedures were successfully performed in 80 patients (66% male, 100% white, 19% stricture). The cytosponge sample was adequate in 102 and the biopsy in 104; 101 procedures had adequate samples by both techniques. Fifty-seven biopsies were graded as active EoE with ≥15 eos/HPF as the gold standard. Eosinophil counts highly correlated between the biopsy and cytosponge (r=0.78, P<0.0001). Using a cutoff of ≤15 eos/HPF for inactive disease, the sensitivity and specificity of the cytosponge was 75% and 86%, respectively. Six patients had active EoE on cytosponge not found on biopsy. For biopsies with inactive EoE, the cytosponge identified 38/44. No complications occurred, and cytosponge endoscopic abrasion scores were low (0.34/4). Patients preferred cytosponge to endoscopy with higher rating scores (7.27 vs. 6.11, P=0.002).

conclusionsCompared to endoscopy with biopsy, cytosponge provided a minimally invasive, safe, well tolerated, and accurate method to assess EoE histologic activity. (ClinicalTrial.gov number NCT01585103).

Indexed as

Eosinophilic EsophagitisSpecimen HandlingSurgical SpongesAdultBiopsyCell CountCross-Sectional StudiesDimensional Measurement AccuracyEosinophilsEsophagoscopyEsophagusFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMonitoring, Physiologic

Identifiers

PMID28809387
PMCPMC5848207
OpenAlexW2748363179

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.