ArticleEsophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society2019
Inter-institutional variations regarding Barrett's esophagus diagnosis.
Article in Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reflux-Related Abnormalities at Distal oesophagus, Gastric Pouch and Anastomotic Site 4 Years After OAGB: Diagnostic Accuracies of Endoscopy Compared to Biopsy and of Symptoms Compared to Both.Obesity surgery · 2025Article
- Cancer risk by length of Barrett's esophagus in Japanese population: a nationwide multicenter retrospective cohort study.Journal of gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Article
- Endoscopic diagnosis and screening of Barrett's esophagus: Inconsistency of diagnostic criteria between Japan and Western countries.DEN open · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBarrett's esophagus (BE) is a known precursor for development of esophageal adenocarcinoma and surveillance of affected patients is necessary when cancer progression risk is considered to be high. However, the accuracy of BE diagnosis may not be homogenous among institutions with endoscopy units. We investigated inter-institutional variability by examining the accuracy of endoscopic diagnosis of BE at 4 different hospitals.
methodsThe accuracy of BE diagnosis at the 4 hospitals was retrospectively reviewed by 6 expert endoscopists, who independently reviewed endoscopic images of approximately 500 consecutive patients examined at each hospital without information regarding the diagnosis by the on-site endoscopists. When the expert reviewers made different diagnosis, a final diagnosis was made by consensus. That was then compared with the diagnosis of the attending endoscopists at each hospital and their concordance was calculated separately for each endoscopy unit. In addition, the relationship between diagnostic accuracy and endoscopic experience was assessed.
resultsThe prevalence of BE diagnosis by the on-site endoscopists was not homogenous and varied widely (17.2-96.8%). In 1 hospital, over-diagnosis was the cause of dissimilarity, while under-diagnosis was the cause in two hospitals. Diagnostic accuracy by the attending endoscopists in all 4 hospitals ranged from 44.6 to 83.1% (P < 0.05). There was no significant association between diagnostic accuracy and endoscopic experience or board licensing status of the on-site endoscopists.
conclusionDiagnostic accuracy for BE was not homogenous among 4 hospitals, and problems related to over- and under-diagnosis should be considered.
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.