ArticleGastroenterology2022
Endoscopic Screening Program for Control of Esophageal Adenocarcinoma in Varied Populations: A Comparative Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.
Article in Gastroenterology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost effectiveness analysis of Barrett's esophagus screening: A systematic review.Best practice & research. Clinical gastroenterology · 2025Pooled it
- Esophageal cancer: from pathogenesis to precision therapies.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2026Review
- Liquid biopsy to identify Barrett's oesophagus, dysplasia and oesophageal adenocarcinoma: theGut · 2025Article
- Advances of aptamers in esophageal cancer diagnosis, treatment and drug delivery.Beilstein journal of nanotechnology · 2025Review
- Esophageal cancer screening, early detection and treatment: Current insights and future directions.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2024Review
- Prevalence and Predictors of Barrett's Esophagus After Negative Initial Endoscopy: Analysis From Two National Databases.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2024Article
- Missed Opportunities: the Timing and Frequency of Screening Colonoscopy in Patients That Develop Esophageal Adenocarcinoma.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2023Article
- New Techniques to Screen for Barrett Esophagus.Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2023Article
- Dutch individuals' views of screening for oesophageal cancer: a focus group study.BMJ open gastroenterology · 2023Article
- Expression and significance of CDX2, FXR, and TGR5 in esophageal cancer.International journal of clinical and experimental pathology · 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
13 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND &
aimsGuidelines suggest endoscopic screening for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) among individuals with symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and additional risk factors. We aimed to determine at what age to perform screening and whether sex and race should influence the decision.
methodsWe conducted comparative cost-effectiveness analyses using 3 independent simulation models. For each combination of sex and race (White/Black, 100,000 individuals each), we considered 41 screening strategies, including one-time or repeated screening. The optimal strategy was that with the highest effectiveness and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained.
resultsAmong White men, 536 EAC deaths were projected without screening, and screening individuals with GERD twice at ages 45 and 60 years was optimal. Screening the entire White male population once at age 55 years was optimal in 26% of probabilistic sensitivity analysis runs. Black men had fewer EAC deaths without screening (n = 84), and screening those with GERD once at age 55 years was optimal. Although White women had slightly more EAC deaths (n = 103) than Black men, the optimal strategy was no screening, although screening those with GERD once at age 55 years was optimal in 29% of probabilistic sensitivity analysis runs. Black women had a very low burden of EAC deaths (n = 29), and no screening was optimal, as benefits were very small and some strategies caused net harm.
conclusionsThe optimal strategy for screening differs by race and sex. White men with GERD symptoms can potentially be screened more intensely than is recommended currently. Screening women is not cost-effective and may cause net harm for Black women.
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.