Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39440080›Full record

ArticleProceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center)2024

Poor adherence to proper Barrett's esophagus screening and surveillance guidelines in patients with newly diagnosed esophageal adenocarcinoma.

Phi Tran, Anupama Ancha, Matthew Tjahja, Mark Shell, Christopher Naumann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

5 authors.

Phi TranDepartment of Internal Medicine, Baylor Scott and White Medical Center, Temple, Texas, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3968-7327
Anupama AnchaDepartment of Internal Medicine, Baylor Scott and White Medical Center, Temple, Texas, USA.
Matthew TjahjaDepartment of Internal Medicine, Baylor Scott and White Medical Center, Temple, Texas, USA.
Mark ShellDivision of Gastroenterology, Baylor Scott and White Medical Center, Temple, Texas, USA.
Christopher NaumannDivision of Gastroenterology, Baylor Scott and White Medical Center, Temple, Texas, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Barrett’s esophagusesophageal adenocarcinomaesophageal cancergastroesophageal reflux diseasesurveillance

Identifiers

PMID39440080
PMCPMC11492693

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.