ReviewCureus2025
Non-endoscopic Biomarkers and Sampling for Diagnosis and Monitoring of Adult Eosinophilic Esophagitis: A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Relationship Between Eosinophilic Esophagitis and Laryngeal Manifestations: Pathophysiology, Clinical Overlap, and Diagnostic Challenges.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Compartment-based biomarker integration for clinical monitoring in eosinophilic esophagitis.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2026Review
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
Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) typically requires endoscopic biopsy for diagnosis and disease monitoring, but less invasive tools may offer clinical utility. This systematic review evaluated the diagnostic performance and treatment responsiveness of non-endoscopic biomarkers and sampling techniques in adult EoE. Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Diagnostic biomarkers such as eosinophil-derived neurotoxin (EDN), major basic protein (MBP), and eosinophilic cationic protein (ECP) showed inconsistent performance across studies. Absolute eosinophil count (AEC) was significantly elevated in active EoE, though reported in only one study. Minimally invasive sampling tools, including cytosponge and liquid-based cytology (LBC), demonstrated moderate sensitivity (70-75%) and specificity (56-86%) for the diagnosis of EoE. For monitoring treatment response, pooled analysis revealed significant reductions in AEC, ECP, and EDN following therapy, while MBP, eotaxin-3, IL-5, and IL-13 showed no meaningful change. Risk of bias was moderate, largely due to variability in biomarker thresholds and lack of treatment stratification. These findings suggest non-endoscopic tools may complement standard histologic evaluation but require prospective validation in larger cohorts before routine clinical use.
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.