ReviewVisceral medicine2022
Barrett's Oesophagus: Today's Mistake and Tomorrow's Wisdom in Screening and Prevention.
Review in Visceral medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Professionals' views on the justification for esophageal adenocarcinoma screening: A systematic literature search and qualitative analysis.Preventive medicine reports · 2023Review
- Barrett's Esophagus: Today's Mistakes and Tomorrow's Wisdom.Visceral medicine · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC) is a lethal cancer with an overall 5-year survival of <20%. Given the presence of a pre-invasive disease stage, also known as Barrett's oesophagus (BO), and the availability of minimally invasive treatments for BO-related neoplasia, it is thought that early detection is the best strategy to improve patient outcomes. Clinical guidelines recommend endoscopic screening in patients with symptoms of acid reflux and additional risk factors. This strategy is flawed by the cost and invasiveness of endoscopy as well as by the fact that a significant proportion of OAC patients deny a history of reflux symptoms. Summary: New research on the use of epidemiologic and clinical data has allowed the creation of risk-prediction algorithms to identify the population at risk. In addition, newer less-invasive devices such as transnasal endoscopy, Cytosponge, volumetric laser endomicroscopy, and volatile organic compounds are emerging as promising options to allow screening in the primary care setting. Finally, there is an opportunity to intervene at the pre-invasive stage with pharmacological strategies to reduce the risk burden. Key Messages: In this review, we provide a critical appraisal of the different screening approaches and chemopreventive strategies and a guide to readers on how to implement research evidence in clinical practice.
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.