ReviewCurrent treatment options in gastroenterology2021
Screening for Barrett's Oesophagus: Are We Ready for it?
Review in Current treatment options in gastroenterology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic mapping of registered interventional studies addressing the top 10 research priorities in Barrett's oesophagus and gastro-oesophageal reflux disease.BMJ open gastroenterology · 2025Pooled it
- Unsedated transnasal endoscopy for the detection of Barrett's esophagus: systematic review and meta-analysis.Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus · 2023Pooled it
- Predicting Regression of Barrett's Esophagus-Can All the King's Men Put It Together Again?Biomolecules · 2024Article
- Professionals' views on the justification for esophageal adenocarcinoma screening: A systematic literature search and qualitative analysis.Preventive medicine reports · 2023Review
- Expanding beyond endoscopy: A review of non-invasive modalities in Barrett's esophagus screening and surveillance.World journal of gastroenterology · 2022Review
- Patient Factors Associated With Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Diagnostic Evaluation Strategies: A Retrospective Cohort Study Using Real-World Evidence From a Large U.S. Medical Claims Database.Gastro hep advances · 2022Article
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
Abstract
Purpose of review: The targeted approach adopted for Barrett's oesophagus (BO) screening is sub-optimal considering the large proportion of BO cases that are currently missed. We reviewed the literature highlighting recent technological advancements in efforts to counteract this challenge. We also provided insights into strategies that can improve the outcomes from current BO screening practises. Recent findings: The standard method for BO detection, endoscopy, is invasive and expensive and therefore inappropriate for mass screening. On the other hand, endoscopy is more cost-effective for screening a high-risk population. A consensus has however not been reached on who should be screened. Risk prediction algorithms have been tested as an enrichment pre-screening tool reporting modest AUC's but require more prospective evaluation studies. Less invasive endoscopy methods like trans-nasal endoscopy, oesophageal capsule endsocopy and non-endoscopic cell collection devices like the Cytosponge coupled with biomarker analysis have shown promise in BO detection with randomised clinical trial evidence. Summary: A three-tier precision cancer programme whereby risk prediction algorithms and non-endoscopic minimally invasive cell collection devices are used to triage test a wider pool of individuals may improve the detection rate of current screening practises with minimal cost implications.
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.