Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36627580›Full record

Trial reportBMC gastroenterology2023

Predictors of the experience of a Cytosponge test: analysis of patient survey data from the BEST3 trial.

Bhagabati Ghimire, Rebecca Landy, Roberta Maroni, Samuel G Smith, Irene Debiram-Beecham, Peter D Sasieni, Rebecca C Fitzgerald, Greg Rubin, Fiona M Walter, Jo Waller and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialPragmatic Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC gastroenterology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. New Techniques to Screen for Barrett Esophagus.Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2023
    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 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Bhagabati Ghimire *Cancer Prevention Group, School of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Rebecca Landy *Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, Department of Health and Human Services, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Roberta MaroniCancer Research UK and King's College London Cancer Prevention Trials Unit, Cancer Prevention Group, School of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Samuel G SmithLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Irene Debiram-BeechamEarly Cancer Institute, Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Peter D SasieniCancer Prevention Group, School of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Rebecca C FitzgeraldEarly Cancer Institute, Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Greg RubinPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, 5th Floor, Ridley 1, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.
Fiona M WalterThe Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Jo WallerCancer Prevention Group, School of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
BEST3 Consortium
Judith OffmanCancer Prevention Group, School of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London, London, UK. judith.offman@kcl.ac.uk.
NIHR Research Delivery Network · GBKing's College London · GBQueen Mary University of London · GBUniversity of Cambridge · GBNational Institutes of Health · USNewcastle University · GBUniversity of Leeds · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 21047Cancer Research UK 25356Cancer Research UK 27047Cancer Research UK C14478/A21047, C8162/A16892, C8162/A25356, C7492/A17219, C8640/A23385Medical Research Council RG84369
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Cytosponge is a cell-collection device, which, coupled with a test for trefoil factor 3 (TFF3), can be used to diagnose Barrett's oesophagus, a precursor condition to oesophageal adenocarcinoma. BEST3, a large pragmatic, randomised, controlled trial, investigated whether offering the Cytosponge-TFF3 test would increase detection of Barrett's. Overall, participants reported mostly positive experiences. This study reports the factors associated with the least positive experience.

methodsPatient experience was assessed using the Inventory to Assess Patient Satisfaction (IAPS), a 22-item questionnaire, completed 7-14 days after the Cytosponge test. STUDY COHORT: All BEST3 participants who answered ≥ 15 items of the IAPS (N = 1458). STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: A mean IAPS score between 1 and 5 (5 indicates most negative experience) was calculated for each individual. 'Least positive' experience was defined according to the 90th percentile. 167 (11.4%) individuals with a mean IAPS score of ≥ 2.32 were included in the 'least positive' category and compared with the rest of the cohort. Eleven patient characteristics and one procedure-specific factor were assessed as potential predictors of the least positive experience. Multivariable logistic regression analysis using backwards selection was conducted to identify factors independently associated with the least positive experience and with failed swallow at first attempt, one of the strongest predictors of least positive experience.

resultsThe majority of responders had a positive experience, with an overall median IAPS score of 1.7 (IQR 1.5-2.1). High (OR = 3.01, 95% CI 2.03-4.46, p < 0.001) or very high (OR = 4.56, 95% CI 2.71-7.66, p < 0.001) anxiety (relative to low/normal anxiety) and a failed swallow at the first attempt (OR = 3.37, 95% CI 2.14-5.30, p < 0.001) were highly significant predictors of the least positive patient experience in multivariable analyses. Additionally, sex (p = 0.036), height (p = 0.032), alcohol intake (p = 0.011) and education level (p = 0.036) were identified as statistically significant predictors.

conclusionWe have identified factors which predict patient experience. Identifying anxiety ahead of the procedure and discussing particular concerns with patients or giving them tips to help with swallowing the capsule might help improve their experience. Trial registration ISRCTN68382401.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaBarrett EsophagusEsophageal NeoplasmsDeglutitionHumansPatient SatisfactionBarrett’s oesophagusCytospongeInventory to assess patient satisfactionPatient experience

Identifiers

PMID36627580
PMCPMC9832657
OpenAlexW4315490478

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.