Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31897894›Full record

ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2020

Risk Prediction Models for Barrett's Esophagus Discriminate Well and Are Generalizable in an External Validation Study.

Colin J Ireland, Aaron P Thrift, Adrian Esterman

Abstract readComparative StudyValidation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2020. 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
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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. Global burden and epidemiology of Barrett oesophagus and oesophageal cancer.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2021
    Review
  4. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Colin J IrelandSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, University of South Australia, GPO Box 2471, Adelaide, SA, 5001, Australia. colin.ireland@unisa.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-7983-0255
Aaron P ThriftSection of Epidemiology and Population Sciences, Department of Medicine, and Dan L Duncan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baylor College of Medicine, One Baylor Plaza, MS: BCM307, Room 621D, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
Adrian EstermanSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, University of South Australia, GPO Box 2471, Adelaide, SA, 5001, Australia.
University of South Australia · AUBaylor College of Medicine · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBarrett's esophagus is the precursor to the highly lethal esophageal adenocarcinoma. Risk prediction models have been developed to assist in its detection, potentially improving early identification and treatment of esophageal adenocarcinoma. Six models have been developed.

aimsTo externally validate three models (Rubenstein, Thrift, and Baldwin-Hunter models) and compare them to a fourth risk prediction model (Ireland model) for Barrett's esophagus.

methodsData from 120 Barrett's cases and 235 population controls were available to externally validate the three models. Discriminatory ability of these models was assessed by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Calibration was assessed with the calibration slope, Hosmer-Lemeshow test, and Lowess smoother calibration plot. Following external validation, diagnostic accuracy of the three models was compared to that of the Ireland model.

resultsOn external validation, the Rubenstein model had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.71 and was well calibrated (Hosmer-Lemeshow test, p = 0.67). Likewise, the Thrift and Baldwin-Hunter models had similar discrimination (0.71 and 0.70, respectively) and were also well calibrated (p = 0.69 and p = 0.28). Our previous external validation of the Ireland model provided an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.83 and was well calibrated (p = 0.14). The Ireland model demonstrated a statistically significantly greater area under the receiver operating characteristic curve than the Rubenstein (p = 0.02), Thrift (p = 0.001), and Baldwin-Hunter (p = 0.002) models.

conclusionWe externally validated the Rubenstein, Thrift, and Baldwin-Hunter risk prediction models and compared them to the Ireland model. The Ireland model demonstrated improved accuracy, albeit with slightly poorer calibration.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesAdenocarcinomaAgedBarrett EsophagusCase-Control StudiesDisease ProgressionEsophageal NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPredictive Value of TestsReproducibility of ResultsRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsAdenocarcinomaBarrett’s esophagusDecision support modelsEpidemiologyRisk assessment

Identifiers

PMID31897894
OpenAlexW2997494973

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.