ArticleGastroenterology & hepatology2019
Management of Barrett Esophagus Following Radiofrequency Ablation.
Article in Gastroenterology & hepatology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Stricturing Diseases of the Gastrointestinal Tract-Current Clinical Practice.JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2026Review
- Risk stratification for stricture formation after endoscopic submucosal dissection for esophageal dysplasia.Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus · 2025Article
- The Predilection of Specific Diseases to Affect Different Sections of the Esophagus.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Comparative cost-effectiveness of three post-radiofrequency ablation surveillance intervals for Barrett's esophagus.Endoscopy international open · 2022Article
- Eosinophilic esophagitis, Barrett's esophagus and esophageal neoplasms in the pediatric patient: a narrative review.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2021Review
- A narrative review of Barrett's esophagus in 2020, molecular and clinical update.Annals of translational medicine · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) effectively treats dysplastic Barrett esophagus (BE), reduces the risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), and infrequently produces complications. Complications of RFA include chest discomfort, esophageal stricturing, and bleeding. However, chest discomfort is usually transient and mild, strictures are generally amenable to dilation, and clinically significant bleeding is rare. Following RFA, intestinal metaplasia recurs at a rate of approximately 10% per patient year of follow-up time. Postablation dysplastic BE and EAC are rare. Moreover, recurrent disease is generally responsive to further endoscopic therapy and is associated with a benign clinical course. Although RFA is effective at producing low rates of postablation EAC and dysplastic recurrence, data suggest that current consensus guidelines for postablation surveillance are overly aggressive, as they mirror those for treatment-naive cohorts. Future guidelines may attenuate surveillance intervals, reducing the burden of endoscopic surveillance while providing for adequate detection of recurrent disease. Additional studies are needed to determine the length of time patients should ultimately remain in surveillance programs. Uncertainty exists regarding the appropriate application of chemopreventive measures (including proton pump inhibitors, aspirin, and statins) and novel imaging and sampling modalities (such as optical coherence tomography and wide-area transepithelial sampling) to reduce the risk of recurrent disease and sampling error, respectively. These uncertainties represent targets for future investigations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31391808PMC6676349What 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.