ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Advances in the Diagnosis of Barrett's Esophagus.
Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Barrett's esophagus (BE), the intestinal metaplasia arising from chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease, is the principal identifiable precursor of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), whose incidence rose from 0.4 to 2.8/100,000 person-years between 1975 and 2017 and whose prognosis, once symptomatic, remains poor. Because outcomes depend on intercepting the metaplasia-dysplasia-carcinoma sequence, diagnostic accuracy is decisive. White-light endoscopy with Seattle-protocol biopsy remains the reference standard, yet it is constrained by the following three interrelated weaknesses: sampling error, as random forceps biopsies interrogate only about 3.5% of the Barrett's mucosa; poor reproducibility of dysplasia grading, with interobserver agreement of only κ 0.24-0.27 for the pivotal distinction of low-grade dysplasia; and a substantial burden of missed disease, with roughly one-quarter of EACs diagnosed within a year of an index endoscopy reported as nondysplastic. This review synthesizes the technologies converging to address these gaps. Advanced imaging, encompassing high-definition endoscopy, narrow-band imaging, acetic acid chromoendoscopy, and the optical-biopsy platforms confocal laser and volumetric laser endomicroscopy, raises dysplasia yield by approximately 34% over standard white-light examination. Image-enhanced endoscopy improves targeted detection while remaining complementary to structured biopsy sampling. Molecular, genetic, and epigenetic biomarkers, notably DNA-content abnormalities, p53 immunohistochemistry, and multi-gene methylation panels, add an objective read on progression risk. Their pairing with non-endoscopic sampling, including Cytosponge-TFF3, capsule endoscopy, exhaled volatile organic compounds, and circulating microRNA liquid biopsy, is reshaping screening at population scale, while artificial intelligence standardizes interpretation and narrows the expert-nonexpert gap. Together these advances point toward a risk-stratified, multimodal paradigm, though prospective validation and cost-effectiveness evidence remain prerequisites for guideline adoption.
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.