Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29369237›Full record

Trial reportJournal of clinical gastroenterology

Comparative Assessment of Patient Preferences and Tolerability in Barrett Esophagus Screening: Results From a Randomized Trial.

Christopher H Blevins, Jason S Egginton, Nilay D Shah, Michele L Johnson, Prasad G Iyer

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of clinical gastroenterology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Miniature gastrointestinal endoscopy: Now and the future.World journal of gastroenterology · 2019
    Review
  4. Novel Screening Tests for Barrett's Esophagus.Current gastroenterology reports · 2019
    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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Christopher H BlevinsDivisions of Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
Jason S EggintonCenter for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Nilay D ShahHealthcare Policy and Research, Mayo Clinic.
Michele L JohnsonHealthcare Policy and Research, Mayo Clinic.
Prasad G IyerDivisions of Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
Mayo Clinic in Arizona · US

Funding

Mayo Clinic Center for Clinical and Translational Science (CCaTS UL1 Supplement - Dr. Timothy Curry)UL1TR002377 · NCATS · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI VESNA D GAROVIC · 2017 to 2026
$78.4M
Mayo Clinic Center for Translational Science ActivitiesUL1TR000135 · NCATS · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI KHOSLA, SUNDEEP · 2012 to 2015
$41.2M
Comparative Effectiveness of endoscopic assessment of GER and BERC4DK090413 · NIDDK · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI IYER, PRASAD G. · 2010 to 2012
$1.0M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000135NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002377NIDDK NIH HHS RC4 DK090413
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

goalsTo determine patient preference for the Barrett esophagus (BE) screening techniques.

backgroundSedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy (sEGD) and unsedated transnasal endoscopy (uTNE) are both potential techniques for BE screening. However, systematic assessment of patient preference for these 2 techniques is lacking. As part of a comparative effectiveness randomized trial of BE screening modalities, we measured short-term patient preferences for the following approaches: in-clinic uTNE (huTNE), mobile-based uTNE (muTNE), and sEGD using a novel assessment instrument. STUDY: Consenting community patients without known BE were randomly assigned to receive huTNE, muTNE, or sEGD, followed by a telephone administered preference and tolerability assessment instrument 24 hours after study procedures. Patient preference was measured by the waiting trade-off method.

resultsIn total, 201 patients completed screening with huTNE (n=71), muTNE (n=71), or sEGD (n=59), and a telephone interview. Patients' preferences for sEGD and uTNE using the waiting trade-off method were comparable (P=0.51). Although tolerability scores were superior for sEGD (P<0.001) compared with uTNE, scores for uTNE examinations were acceptable.

conclusionsPatient preference is comparable between sEGD and uTNE for diagnostic examinations conducted in an endoscopy suite or in a mobile setting. Given acceptable tolerability, uTNE may be a viable alternative to sEGD for BE screening.

Indexed as

Endoscopy, Digestive SystemPatient PreferenceAdenocarcinomaAgedBarrett EsophagusEsophageal NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPain MeasurementProcedural SedationTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID29369237
PMCPMC6056346
OpenAlexW2789652790

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.