Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35393308›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2022

Patient-reported experiences and views on the Cytosponge test: a mixed-methods analysis from the BEST3 trial.

Roberta Maroni, Jessica Barnes, Judith Offman, Fiona Scheibl, Samuel G Smith, Irene Debiram-Beecham, Jo Waller, Peter Sasieni, Rebecca C Fitzgerald, Greg Rubin and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. 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 · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. New Techniques to Screen for Barrett Esophagus.Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Diagnosis and Management of Barrett's Esophagus.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023
    Review
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Roberta Maroni *Cancer Research UK and King's College London Cancer Prevention Trials Unit (CPTU), Cancer Prevention Group, School of Cancer & Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6420-2881
Jessica Barnes *Cancer Research UK and King's College London Cancer Prevention Trials Unit (CPTU), Cancer Prevention Group, School of Cancer & Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Judith Offman *Cancer Prevention Group, School of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London, London, UK judith.offman@kcl.ac.uk.
Fiona ScheiblNorwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Samuel G SmithLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Irene Debiram-BeechamMRC Cancer Unit, Hutchison-MRC Research Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Jo WallerCancer Prevention Group, School of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4025-9132
Peter SasieniCancer Research UK and King's College London Cancer Prevention Trials Unit (CPTU), Cancer Prevention Group, School of Cancer & Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1509-8744
Rebecca C FitzgeraldMRC Cancer Unit, Hutchison-MRC Research Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Greg RubinPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4967-0297
BEST3 Consortium
Fiona M WalterThe Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health & Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7191-6476
King's College London · GBUniversity of Cambridge · GBNewcastle University · GBQueen Mary University of London · GBUniversity of East Anglia · GBUniversity of Leeds · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 16893Cancer Research UK 21047Cancer Research UK 25356
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe BEST3 trial demonstrated the efficacy and safety of the Cytosponge-trefoil factor 3, a cell collection device coupled with the biomarker trefoil factor 3, as a tool for detecting Barrett's oesophagus, a precursor of oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC), in primary care. In this nested study, our aim was to understand patient experiences.

designMixed-methods using questionnaires (including Inventory to Assess Patient Satisfaction, Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory-6 and two-item perceived risk) and interviews. OUTCOME MEASURES: Participant satisfaction, anxiety and perceived risk of developing OAC.

settingGeneral practices in England.

participantsPatients with acid reflux enrolled in the intervention arm of the BEST3 trial and attending the Cytosponge appointment (N=1750).

results1488 patients successfully swallowing the Cytosponge completed the follow-up questionnaires, while 30 were interviewed, including some with an unsuccessful swallow.Overall, participants were satisfied with the Cytosponge test. Several items showed positive ratings, in particular convenience and accessibility, staff's interpersonal skills and perceived technical competence. The most discomfort was reported during the Cytosponge removal, with more than 60% of participants experiencing gagging. Nevertheless, about 80% were willing to have the procedure again or to recommend it to friends; this was true even for participants experiencing discomfort, as confirmed in the interviews.Median anxiety scores were below the predefined level of clinically significant anxiety and slightly decreased between baseline and follow-up (p < 0.001). Interviews revealed concerns around the ability to swallow, participating in a clinical trial, and waiting for test results.The perceived risk of OAC increased following the Cytosponge appointment (p<0.001). Moreover, interviews suggested that some participants had trouble conceptualising risk and did not understand the relationships between test results, gastro-oesophageal reflux and risk of Barrett's oesophagus and OAC.

conclusionsWhen delivered during a trial in primary care, the Cytosponge is well accepted and causes little anxiety. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN68382401.

Indexed as

Barrett EsophagusEsophageal NeoplasmsGastroesophageal RefluxAdenocarcinomaBestrophinsHumansMuscle ProteinsPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresTrefoil Factor-3BEST3 protein, humanBestrophinsMuscle ProteinsTrefoil Factor-3gastrointestinal tumourspreventive medicineprimary carepublic health

Identifiers

PMID35393308
PMCPMC8990713
OpenAlexW4223555314

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.