Trial reportEndoscopy2025
Endoscopic biopsy techniques in Barrett esophagus patients: a multidesign study.
Trial report in Endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: The impact of different random biopsy techniques for Barrett esophagus (BE) surveillance on histopathological quality is unclear. We compared the double- vs. single-biopsy method and advance-and-close vs. turn-and-suction technique. Methods: In a multicenter, factorial design trial (Part I), BE patients were randomly assigned to the double- or single-biopsy method and advance-and-close or turn-and-suction technique (1:1:1:1). In a before–after study (Part II), the optimal biopsy method and technique were implemented in clinical practice. The primary end point in both parts was biopsy size. Results: In Part I (107 patients, 1024 biopsies), single-method biopsies were 25% larger than double-method biopsies (3.34 mm2 [95%CI 3.10–3.57] vs. 2.68 mm2 [95%CI 2.45–2.92]; P < 0.001). Mean (95%CI) biopsy size was 2.95 mm2 (2.72–3.19) and 3.08 mm2 (2.85–3.31) with advance-and-close and turn-and-suction techniques, respectively (P = 0.44). The interaction term between the co-primary comparisons was P = 0.08. Mean (95%CI) biopsy size for double-biopsy + advance-and-close, double-biopsy + turn-and-suction, single-biopsy + advance-and-close, and single-biopsy + turn-and-suction was 2.77 mm2 (2.44–3.09), 2.61 mm2 (2.29–2.93), 3.14 mm2 (2.81–3.46), and 3.54 mm2 (3.22–3.86), respectively. In Part II, 46 and 44 patients were included before and after implementation of the single-biopsy method and turn-and-suction technique, in whom this combination was used in 16/46 (35%) and 44/44 (100%) patients, respectively. Mean (95%CI) biopsy size increased by 18%, from 3.31 mm2 (2.95–3.68) to 3.90 mm2 (3.50–4.29; P = 0.03). Conclusion: BE surveillance biopsies should be taken with the single-biopsy method and turn-and-suction technique to increase biopsy size.
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.