Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35399814›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2022

Public acceptance and uptake of oesophageal adenocarcinoma screening strategies: A mixed-methods systematic review.

Jasmijn Sijben, Yonne Peters, Kim van der Velden, Linda Rainey, Peter D Siersema, Mireille J M Broeders

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. 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
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

6 authors.

Jasmijn SijbenDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud university medical center, Geert Grooteplein-Zuid 8, Nijmegen 6500 HB, the Netherland.
Yonne PetersDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud university medical center, Geert Grooteplein-Zuid 8, Nijmegen 6500 HB, the Netherland.
Kim van der VeldenDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud university medical center, Geert Grooteplein-Zuid 8, Nijmegen 6500 HB, the Netherland.
Linda RaineyRadboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein-Zuid 8, Nijmegen 6500 HB, the Netherland.
Peter D SiersemaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud university medical center, Geert Grooteplein-Zuid 8, Nijmegen 6500 HB, the Netherland.
Mireille J M BroedersRadboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein-Zuid 8, Nijmegen 6500 HB, the Netherland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC) is increasingly diagnosed and often fatal, thus representing a growing global health concern. Screening for its precursor, Barrett's oesophagus (BO), combined with endoscopic surveillance and treatment of dysplasia might prevent OAC. This review aimed to systematically explore the public's acceptance and uptake of novel screening strategies for OAC. We systematically searched three electronic databases (Ovid Medline/PubMed, Ovid EMBASE and PsycINFO) from date of inception to July 2, 2021 and hand-searched references to identify original studies published in English on acceptability and uptake of OAC screening. Two reviewers independently reviewed and appraised retrieved records and two reviewers extracted data (verified by one other reviewer). Of the 3674 unique records, 19 studies with 15 249 participants were included in the review. Thematic analysis of findings showed that acceptability of OAC screening is related to disease awareness, fear, belief in benefit, practicalities and physical discomfort. The findings were mapped on the Integrated Screening Action Model. Minimally invasive screening tests are generally well-tolerated: patient-reported outcomes were reported for sedated upper endoscopy (tolerability ++), transnasal endoscopy (tolerability +), tethered capsule endomicroscopy (tolerability +/-), and the Cytosponge-TFF3 test (acceptability ++). In discrete choice experiments, individuals mainly valued screening test accuracy. OAC screening has been performed in trials using conventional upper endoscopy ( Funding: This study was funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw) under grant 555,004,206.

Indexed as

Barrett EsophagusDiagnostic Techniques, Digestive SystemEarly detection of cancerEndoscopyEsophageal NeoplasmsMass screeningPatient Acceptance of Health CarePatient participationPatient preferencePatient reported outcome measuresQualitative Research

Identifiers

PMID35399814
PMCPMC8987366

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.