ReviewGastroenterology and hepatology from bed to bench2026
Barrett's esophagus around the world: a systematic review and predictive modeling study.
Review in Gastroenterology and hepatology from bed to bench, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: This study aimed to synthesize evidence on the prevalence of Barrett's esophagus (BE), estimate its global burden, and examine variation across studies. Background: Accurate BE prevalence estimates are essential for developing effective screening and surveillance strategies. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and EMBASE from inception to January 2026. Full-text articles and reference lists were also screened manually. Studies reporting BE prevalence in general or clinical populations were included. Extracted data covered study design, population characteristics, diagnostic criteria, biopsy protocols, geographic region, and publication period. Study-level analyses assessed methodological variability and temporal trends. Linear regression and generalized additive models were used to project BE prevalence through 2050. Results: Fifty-two studies, including approximately 8.4 million participants from 24 countries, were analyzed. The pooled mean prevalence of BE was 5.76%, with estimates ranging from 0.06% to 37.4%. Prevalence was higher in symptomatic endoscopy cohorts than in population-based cohorts (4.8% vs. 1.2%, p < 0.001). Studies requiring histologic confirmation of intestinal metaplasia reported lower estimates than those using broader definitions. Significant heterogeneity was observed by region and publication period. Seattle biopsy protocol reporting was documented in 38.5% of studies and improved after 2010. Forecast models projected BE prevalence of 12.8-13.2% by 2050 using linear modeling and 11.2-11.8% using GAM. Conclusion: Reported BE prevalence varies widely, mainly due to differences in diagnostic criteria, study populations, and methodology. Standardized definitions, biopsy protocols, and reporting practices are needed to improve epidemiologic accuracy and guide screening.
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.