ArticleProceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center)2024
Poor adherence to proper Barrett's esophagus screening and surveillance guidelines in patients with newly diagnosed esophageal adenocarcinoma.
Article in Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The importance of screening and surveillance: Barrett's esophagus and esophageal cancer.Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Screening for Barrett's esophagus (BE) remains controversial, even for high-risk populations. Our study aimed to evaluate the proportion of patients diagnosed with esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) who were not screened for BE or did not receive recommended BE surveillance screening. We then evaluated the relationship between cancer staging and screening/surveillance opportunities. Methods: This single-center retrospective study included 187 patients from January 2016 to January 2022 with newly diagnosed EAC. Data extracted from patient charts included BE risk factors, and BE, endoscopic, and histologic history. Results: A total of 187 patients had a new diagnosis of EAC. Among this group, 44% had appropriate BE surveillance adherence, and 47% of patients met the criteria for BE screening but had not been screened prior to EAC diagnosis. Adherence to BE surveillance was associated with earlier stages of cancer on biopsy. No significant difference in cancer staging was found in those with missed BE screening opportunities. Discussion: Patients with a diagnosis of BE who adhered to surveillance guidelines had earlier stage EAC at diagnosis, which emphasizes the importance of surveillance. Most of those with an initial diagnosis of EAC had not received any BE screening.
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.