ArticleGastroenterology2020
Validation and Comparison of Tools for Selecting Individuals to Screen for Barrett's Esophagus and Early Neoplasia.
Article in Gastroenterology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- AGA Clinical Practice Update on New Technology and Innovation for Surveillance and Screening in Barrett's Esophagus: Expert Review.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2022Guideline
- Natural history of Barrett's esophagus over a 10-year period: a longitudinal endoscopic study in a Japanese population.Journal of gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Screening for Barrett's esophagus and esophageal adenocarcinoma: recent advances and next steps.Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus · 2026Review
- A Practical Guide to Incorporating Novel Barrett's Screening/Surveillance Tools into Clinical Practice.Current gastroenterology reports · 2026Review
- Self-management and help-seeking behavior for gastroesophageal reflux symptoms: A population-based survey.World journal of gastroenterology · 2026Observational
- Construction and validation of a novel diagnostic model for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: an integrated analysis of multi-omics data.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Endoscopic Screening of Barrett's Esophagus.Gastrointestinal endoscopy clinics of North America · 2026Review
- Nonendoscopic Screening for Barrett's Esophagus: Current Methods, Evidence, and Future Directions.Gastro hep advances · 2026Review
- A Simple, Interpretable Machine Learning Model Based on Clinical Factors Accurately Predicts Incident Dysplasia or Malignancy in Barrett's Esophagus.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2025Article
- New Approaches to Screening for Barrett Esophagus.Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2025Article
- Gender disparities and woman-specific trends in Barrett's esophagus in the United States: An 11-year nationwide population-based study.World journal of methodology · 2025Article
- Cost-effective identification of Barrett's esophagus in the community: A first step towards screening.Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2024Article
- Development of a prediction score for Barrett's esophagus in Japanese health checkup settings.Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 2024Article
- Barrett's Esophagus Risk Factors in Patients Without Gastroesophageal Reflux: A Large Population-Based Study.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2024Article
- Improving esophageal cancer screening across the globe: Translating knowledge into action.Indian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology · 2024Review
- Advances in Screening for Barrett Esophagus and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma.Mayo Clinic proceedings · 2024Review
- Predicting Incident Adenocarcinoma of the Esophagus or Gastric Cardia Using Machine Learning of Electronic Health Records.Gastroenterology · 2023Article
- New Techniques to Screen for Barrett Esophagus.Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2023Article
- Diagnosis and Management of Barrett's Esophagus.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Utilization trends for endoscopic ablation therapy and esophagectomy in Barrett's esophagus from 2005 to 2019.Scientific reports · 2022Observational
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.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND &
aimsGuidelines suggest endoscopic screening of individuals who are at increased risk for Barrett's esophagus (BE) and esophageal adenocarcinoma. Tools based on clinical factors are available for identifying patients at risk, but only some have been validated. We aimed to compare and validate available tools.
methodsWe performed a prospective study of 1241 patients, ages 40 to 79 years, presenting either for their first esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) or their first endoscopic therapy of early neoplastic BE, from April 2015 through June 2018. We calculated risk scores for 6 previously published tools (the Gerson, Locke, Thrift, Michigan BE pREdiction Tool [M-BERET], Nord-Trøndelag Health Study [HUNT], and Kunzmann tools). We also investigated the accuracy of frequency and duration of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), using data from a randomly selected 50% of patients undergoing their first EGD. We compared the ability of all these tools to discriminate patients with BE and early neoplasia from patients without BE, using findings from endoscopy as the reference standard.
resultsBE was detected in 81 of 1152 patients during their first EGD (7.0%). GERD symptoms alone identified patients with BE with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AuROC) of 0.579. All of the tools were more accurate in identifying patients with BE than the frequency and duration of GERD (AuROC for GERD, 0.579 vs range for other tools, 0.660-0.695), and predicted risk correlated well with observed risk (calibration). The AUROCs of the HUNT tool (0.796), the M-BERET (0.773), and the Kunzmann tool (0.763) were comparable in discriminating between patients with early neoplasia (n = 94) vs no BE. Each tool was more accurate in discriminating BE with early neoplasia than GERD frequency and duration alone (AuROC, 0.667; P < .01).
conclusionsThe HUNT, M-BERET, and Kunzmann tools identify patients with BE with AuROC values ranging from 0.665 to 0.695, and discriminate patients with early neoplasia from patients without BE with AuROC values ranging from 0.763 to 0.796. These tools are more accurate than frequency and duration of GERD in identifying individuals at risk for neoplastic BE.
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.