ArticleGastro hep advances2026
Implementation of Provider-Facing Interventions to Increase Uptake of Endoscopic Screening for Esophageal Adenocarcinoma.
Article in Gastro hep advances, 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background and Aims: Screening uptake among individuals at high-risk for esophageal adenocarcinoma and gastric cardia adenocarcinoma remains poor. We conducted a pilot study to evaluate the real-world implementation of 2 approaches for endoscopic screening uptake in high-risk individuals identified by an automated risk assessment tool, with the aim of identifying facilitators, barriers, and implementation gaps. Methods: Pilot 1 involved notifying primary care provider (PCPs) of patients at high risk and due for colorectal cancer screening. Pilot 2 used nurse outreach to offer esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) to high-risk patients scheduling a screening colonoscopy. The primary outcome was feasibility - EGD ordered among eligible patients. Secondary outcomes included EGD completion and acceptability, assessed through semistructured interviews with patients, PCPs, gastroenterologists, and facility leadership. Results: In Pilot 1, PCPs were notified of 97 high-risk patients; EGDs were ordered in 28 (29%) and completed in 15 (54% of ordered). If colorectal cancer screening was ordered, PCPs were more likely to discuss esophageal adenocarcinoma/gastric cardia adenocarcinoma risk (69% vs 36%, Conclusion: Both provider notifications and nurse outreach demonstrated high acceptability and completion but limited feasibility for increasing EGD orders due to provider and system-level barriers, highlighting implementation gaps and targets for guideline and workflow integration.
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.