ArticleJournal of gastroenterology and hepatology2024
Cost-effective identification of Barrett's esophagus in the community: A first step towards screening.
Article in Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Practical Guide to Incorporating Novel Barrett's Screening/Surveillance Tools into Clinical Practice.Current gastroenterology reports · 2026Review
- Computing lifetime incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma and age-specific prevalence of Barrett's esophagus.Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus · 2025Article
- Cost-effective identification of Barrett's esophagus in the community: A first step towards screening.Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimThe first step towards developing a screening strategy for Barrett's esophagus (BE) is the identification of individuals in the community. Currently available tools include endoscopy, less-invasive non-endoscopic devices, and non-invasive risk stratification models. We evaluated the cost of potential strategies for identification of BE as a first step towards screening.
methodsTwo hypothetical cohorts of the general population aged ≥ 50 years with BE prevalence rates of 1.9% and 6.8% were modeled. Four potential screening tools were evaluated: (i) risk stratification based on non-weighted clinical factors according to US/European guidelines, (ii) weighted risk stratification using algorithmic models, (iii) less-invasive devices such as Cytosponge + trefoil factor 3 (TFF3), and (iv) endoscopy. Using a decision-analytic model, the cost per BE case identified and the cost-effectiveness were compared for six potential BE screening strategies based on combinations of the four screening tools; (i) + (iv), (ii) + (iv), (iii) + (iv), (i) + (iii) + (iv), (ii) + (iii) + (iv), and only (iv).
resultsThe cost per BE case identified was lowest for the weighted risk stratification followed by Cytosponge-TFF3 then endoscopy strategy at both 1.9% and 6.8% BE prevalences (US$9282 and US$3406, respectively) although it was sensitive to the cost of less-invasive devices. This strategy was also most cost-effective for a BE prevalence of 1.9%. At BE prevalence of 6.8%, the Cytosponge-TFF3 followed by endoscopy strategy was most cost-effective.
conclusionsIncorporating weighted risk stratification and less-invasive devices such as Cytosponge-TFF3 into BE screening strategies has a potential to cost-effectively identify BE in the community although device cost and the community prevalence of BE will impact the optimal strategy.
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.