Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32080134›Full record

ArticleMedicine2020

Seattle protocol vs narrow band imaging guided biopsy in screening of Barrett's esophagus in gastroesophageal reflux disease patients.

Ahmed Elsheaita, Mohamed Ahmed El-Bially, Mohammed Mohammed Shamseya, Sanaa Shawky Ahmed, Marwa Ahmed Madkour, Ayman Mohammed Shamseya, Hanan Hosny Nouh

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. ADENOCARCINOMA AND DYSPLASIA IN BARRETT ESOPHAGUS: CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF RISK FACTORS AND SURVEILLANCE PROTOCOLS.Arquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Ahmed ElsheaitaDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Internal Medicine.
Mohamed Ahmed El-BiallyDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Internal Medicine.
Mohammed Mohammed ShamseyaDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Internal Medicine.
Sanaa Shawky AhmedDepartment of Pathology, Medical Research Institute.
Marwa Ahmed MadkourDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Internal Medicine.
Ayman Mohammed ShamseyaDepartment of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Alexandria University, Egypt.
Hanan Hosny NouhDepartment of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Alexandria University, Egypt.
Alexandria University · EGMedical Research Institute · LK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Barrett's esophagus has 0.5% to 7% risk of progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma. The method of obtaining biopsies to diagnose Barrett's is challenging. Seattle protocol has been considered as the gold standard, however its difficulty limits its applicability in practice. Narrow band imaging guided biopsy has been proposed as an alternative.To investigate the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and applicability of Narrow band guided biopsy as a screening tool for Barret's esophagus in gastroesophageal reflux patients.Endoscopy was done in 2 different sessions 2 weeks apart for 100 patients in Alexandria, Egypt. Patients had at least one of the following: Chronic Gastroesophageal reflux disease, frequent Gastroesophageal reflux disease, or two or more risk factors for Barrett's esophagus. All patients with known Barrett's esophagus were excluded.Seventeen patients had Barrett's esophagus either by one of the two techniques or by both, 4 patients by both methods, 7 patients by narrow band imaging alone and 6 patients by Seattle protocol alone (P < .001, κ = 0.461). Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value and positive predictive value for Seattle protocol were 58.8%, 100%, 92.2%, 100% vs 76.5%, 100%, 95.4%, 100% respectively for narrow band imaging. A mean of 7.73 samples/patient was taken in Seattle protocol vs 3.42 samples in narrow band imaging (P < .001). A mean of 8.63 minutes was consumed in Seattle protocol vs 2.65 minutes in narrow band imaging (P < .001).Narrow band imaging guided biopsy might have higher accuracy, sensitivity and negative predictive value as well as fewer number of biopsies and shorter time of the procedure compared to Seattle protocol which might increases its applicability as screening protocol for Barrett's esophagus. However, further larger multicentric studies are needed.

Indexed as

EsophagoscopyImage-Guided BiopsyNarrow Band ImagingAdolescentAdultAgedBarrett EsophagusBiopsyEgyptEsophagusFemaleGastroesophageal RefluxHumansMaleMiddle AgedPredictive Value of Tests

Identifiers

PMID32080134
PMCPMC7034706
OpenAlexW3007818481

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.