Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37525901›Full record

ReviewDigestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society2024

Quality indicators in Barrett's endoscopy: Best is yet to come.

Madoka Inoue, Krish Ragunath

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Screening for Barrett's esophagus and esophageal adenocarcinoma: recent advances and next steps.Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus · 2026
    Review
  2. How Many Biopsies Are Enough? Rethinking Biopsy and Surveillance Strategies for Barrett's Esophagus in Asia.Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Key Performance Indicators Applied in Medicine.International archives of otorhinolaryngology · 2025
    Article
  5. Review
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Madoka InoueCurtin Medical School, Curtin University, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2004-5594
Krish RagunathCurtin Medical School, Curtin University, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6571-5435
Curtin University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is growing interest in establishing quality indicators (QIs) for endoscopic screening and surveillance in Barrett's esophagus (BE). QIs are objective, measurable, and evidence-based metrics that are applicable in a health-care setting to monitor a process and identify key performance indicators (KPIs) to achieve defined goals. In the Barrett's endoscopy setting, QIs can offer a standardized approach to monitor and maintain high-quality endoscopy for BE screening and surveillance that will allow measuring performance of an endoscopist as an individual, a group, or a facility. Since BE is an endoscopically identifiable premalignant condition with histological corroboration, adherence to QIs is paramount for the early and accurate detection of dysplasia and neoplasia. It is the holy grail for BE screening and surveillance. Although several suggested QIs for Barrett's endoscopy exist, issues remain in determining the most appropriate ones. These issues include inconsistent use of terminology, unclear definitions, and a scarcity of studies linking these QIs with relevant patient outcomes, making it difficult for clinicians to understand the concept and clinical importance. Hence, there is an urgent need to determine what should constitute appropriate QIs for Barrett's endoscopy, clearly define items used in the QIs, and identify ways to measure these KPIs. Ultimately, well-defined and validated QIs will contribute to clinically effective, safe, timely, and patient-focused care. In this review, we summarize recent literature and discuss four proposed QIs: (i) neoplasia detection rate; (ii) postendoscopy Barrett's neoplasia; (iii) Barrett's inspection time; and (iv) adherence to the Seattle biopsy protocol.

Indexed as

Barrett EsophagusEsophageal NeoplasmsBiopsyEsophagoscopyHumansQuality Indicators, Health CareBarrett's esophagusendoscopynarrative reviewquality indicator

Identifiers

PMID37525901
PMCPMC12136253
OpenAlexW4385442876

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.