ArticleCureus2020
Diagnostic Inaccuracies of Barrett's Oesophagus on Gastroscopy: Are We Performing Unnecessary Surveillance?
Article in Cureus, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background It is common for patients to enter Barrett's oesophagus (BO) surveillance based on endoscopic appearances before the diagnosis is histologically confirmed. We set out to review this practice by establishing the accuracy of endoscopic diagnoses of BO. Methods All gastroscopy reports in which a diagnosis of BO was recorded were reviewed over one year. These were compared to the histopathological reports to assess diagnostic accuracy. Results BO was diagnosed in 84 procedures. This diagnosis was incorrect according to histology in 42.9% (n=36) of cases. Diagnostic accuracy was higher with gastroenterologists (38.8% incorrect, n=21) compared to surgeons (50% incorrect, n=15). Diagnostic accuracy was higher with consultants (34.9% incorrect, n=22) compared to registrars (66.7% incorrect, n=14). The dose of sedation used had no impact on accuracy. Unnecessary surveillance was booked in 36.1% (n=13) of cases. Conclusion It is insufficient to rely on endoscopic appearances alone to diagnose BO, irrespective of speciality or experience. The diagnosis should only be made after reviewing the histopathology report. This can eliminate unnecessary repeat endoscopy procedures, sparing patients from unjustifiable risk and helping to cut down on long waiting lists in endoscopy departments. The implementation of the Prague classification and Seattle protocol can improve diagnostic accuracy.
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.