ArticleGE Portuguese journal of gastroenterology2025
Surveillance and Treatment of Barrett's Esophagus: Results from a Portuguese Tertiary Center.
Article in GE Portuguese journal of gastroenterology, 2025. 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.
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
Introduction: Barrett's esophagus (BE) is a premalignant condition that requires surveillance, in order to diagnose and treat dysplasia, improving survival. Results from surveillance and endoscopic treatment are well-described in different populations. This is the first evaluation of the outcomes of endoscopic resection and ablation of BE patients in a Portuguese center. Methods: This is a single-center retrospective cohort study analyzing the results of endoscopic surveillance and treatment of patients with BE between January 2004 and September 2024. The following outcomes were evaluated: detection of dysplasia and/or visible lesions; rate of curative endoscopic resection; rate of BE refractory to ablation; adverse event (AE) rates of endoscopic resection and ablation; BE-related mortality and survival. Results: Eighty-nine patients were followed for a median of 3 years (interquartile range 1-6). A total of 37 lesions were identified, and treated with endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and other modalities in 76%, 16%, and 8% of patients, respectively, with curative resection and AE rates of 86% (95% CI: 67%-96%) and 11% (95% CI: 2%-28%) for EMR, and 67% (95% CI: 22%-96%) and 17% (95% CI: 0%-64%) for ESD, respectively. A response rate of 97% was observed in 33 patients submitted to mucosal ablation, with 1 patient presenting refractory disease and 1 patient showing recurrence of intestinal metaplasia. One patient died of BE-related neoplasia. Conclusion: Our study shows results of BE treatment generally comparable to published literature, in a low-prevalence country. A high curative resection and a high success rate of mucosal ablation were achieved, with low refractory and recurrent disease.
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.