Observational studyScientific reports2026
Adherence to Barrett's esophagus surveillance guidelines and its impact on progression: a multicenter prospective study.
Observational study in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
25 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Adherence to surveillance recommendations for Barrett’s esophagus (BE) has been little studied. This study evaluated adherence to current guidelines in Spain, factors associated with deviations from recommendations, and the impact on progression. It was a prospective, observational, multicenter study of patients with BE between January 2016 and December 2022. 375 patients (80.5% males, age 55 ± 13 years) were followed for 50 (IQR 34–61) months and underwent 556 gastroscopies, 505(90.8%) for surveillance. Among these, only 206(40.8%) were performed within the recommended intervals and 254(50.3%) were early endoscopies. Risk factors for early endoscopy were short BE length (< 3 cm 59.5% vs. ≥ 3 cm 42.2%, OR 2.01(1.35–2.98)) and endoscopy referred by a surgeon (7.2% vs. 2.8%, OR 2.99(1.19–7.52)), whereas use of the Seattle protocol (68% vs 79.9%, OR 0.51(0.32–0.8)) was protective. BE progression was confirmed in 13 patients (3.4%): 7 low-grade dysplasia, 5 high-grade dysplasia or in-situ adenocarcinoma, and 1 invasive adenocarcinoma. The median time from BE diagnosis to progression was 48 months (IQR 28–59). Early endoscopy did not significantly increased detection of BE progression (3.1% vs 2%, p = 0.41). The only independent risk factor for progression was BE length (OR 9.39 (2.02–43.78)). In conclusion, adherence to BE surveillance guidelines in Spain is low and the tendency to early endoscopy is notable. Improving adherence could reduce unnecessary procedures without compromising patient outcomes.
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.