ArticleClinical and translational gastroenterology2020
Public Preferences and Predicted Uptake for Esophageal Cancer Screening Strategies: A Labeled Discrete Choice Experiment.
Article in Clinical and translational gastroenterology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Public Preferences for Emerging Cancer Screening Modalities: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments.The patient · 2026Pooled it
- The Evolving Landscape of Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Pooled it
- Attributes Used for Cancer Screening Discrete Choice Experiments: A Systematic Review.The patient · 2022Pooled it
- Barriers and Enablers to Capsule Sponge Screening Among People With Heartburn: A Community-Based Qualitative Study in the UK.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Patients' Preferences for the Treatment of a Single Missing Tooth in China: A Discrete Choice Experiment.Patient preference and adherence · 2024Article
- ZPR1 is an immunodiagnostic biomarker and promotes tumor progression in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.Cancer science · 2024Article
- Public Preference Heterogeneity and Predicted Uptake Rate of Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Screening Programs in Rural China: Discrete Choice Experiments and Latent Class Analysis.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2023Article
- Dutch individuals' views of screening for oesophageal cancer: a focus group study.BMJ open gastroenterology · 2023Article
- Methodology to derive preference for health screening programmes using discrete choice experiments: a scoping review.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Public acceptance and uptake of oesophageal adenocarcinoma screening strategies: A mixed-methods systematic review.EClinicalMedicine · 2022Article
- Preference for endoscopic screening of upper gastrointestinal cancer among Chinese rural residents: a discrete choice experiment.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Development of EndoScreen Chip, a Microfluidic Pre-Endoscopy Triage Test for Esophageal Adenocarcinoma.Cancers · 2021Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAs novel, less invasive (non)endoscopic techniques for detection of Barrett's esophagus (BE) have been developed, there is now renewed interest in screening for BE and related neoplasia. We aimed to determine public preferences for esophageal adenocarcinoma screening to understand the potential of minimally invasive screening modalities.
methodsA discrete choice experiment was conducted in 1,500 individuals, aged 50-75 years, from the general population. Individuals were repeatedly asked to choose between screening scenarios based on conventional upper endoscopy, transnasal endoscopy, nonendoscopic cell collection devices, breath analysis, and a blood test, combined with various levels of test sensitivity and specificity, and no screening. A multinomial logit model was used to estimate individuals' preferences and to calculate expected participation rates.
resultsIn total, 554 respondents (36.9%) completed the survey. The average predicted uptake was 70.5% (95% confidence interval: 69.1%-71.8%). Test sensitivity (47.7%), screening technique (32.6%), and specificity (19.7%) affected screening participation (all P < 0.05). A low test sensitivity had the highest impact on screening participation, resulting in a 25.0% (95% confidence interval: 22.6%-27.7%) decrease. Respondents preferred noninvasive screening tests over endoscopic and capsule-based techniques, but only if sensitivity and specificity were above 80%. DISCUSSION: Our study suggests that individuals generally prefer noninvasive BE screening tests. However, these tests would unlikely improve screening uptake when associated with a much lower accuracy for detecting BE and esophageal adenocarcinoma compared with conventional upper endoscopy. Improving accuracy of minimally invasive screening strategies and informing the target population about these accuracies is therefore essential to maximally stimulate screening participation.
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.