ReviewFrontline gastroenterology2010
Surveillance of Barrett's oesophagus: do we yet know whether it is worthwhile?
Review in Frontline gastroenterology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Risk of malignant progression in Barrett's esophagus patients: results from a large population-based study.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In 2004, the Peninsula Technology Assessment Group developed an economic model to assess the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of surveillance of Barrett's oesophagus in preventing morbidity and mortality from oesophageal adenocarcinoma. The conclusion then was that surveillance was dominated (ie, cost more and conferred less health benefit) by non-surveillance in most scenarios and that surveillance was unlikely to be cost effective at usual levels of willingness to pay. The model outputs were highly sensitive, however, to several parameters for which the data were very uncertain. While there are now better estimates of some of the model inputs, such as cancer risk and quality of life, the revised values make it less likely that surveillance could prove cost effective. There remains considerable uncertainty around other key inputs. At present, there seems little reason to change our original conclusion that surveillance of Barrett's oesophagus is unlikely to be cost effective and a definitive answer may only be possible from clinical trials now in progress. As newer endoscopic techniques for treating Barrett's oesophagus and adenocarcinoma become more widely used, however, conventional surveillance programmes may no longer be undertaken, and revised economic models will be needed to assess the cost effectiveness of the new clinical pathways.
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.