ArticleEClinicalMedicine2022
Public acceptance and uptake of oesophageal adenocarcinoma screening strategies: A mixed-methods systematic review.
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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Liquid biopsy to identify Barrett's oesophagus, dysplasia and oesophageal adenocarcinoma: theGut · 2025Article
- Prognostic impact of deprivation on esophagogastroduodenoscopy outcome.Endoscopy international open · 2024Article
- Patient experiences of Cytosponge: a qualitative study.Frontline gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Dutch, UK and US professionals' perceptions of screening for Barrett's esophagus and esophageal adenocarcinoma: a concept mapping study.BMC cancer · 2023Article
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.