Acceptability and Adequacy of a Non-endoscopic Cell Collection Device for Diagnosis of Barrett’s Esophagus: Lessons Learned
Digestive Diseases and Sciences, ISSN: 1573-2568, Vol: 67, Issue: 1, Page: 177-186
2022
- 6Citations
- 12Captures
- 22Mentions
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations6
- Citation Indexes6
- Captures12
- Readers12
- 12
- Mentions22
- News Mentions22
- News22
Most Recent News
Lucid Diagnostics Chairman & CEO, Dr. Lishan Aklog, Highlights EsoCheck® Esophageal Cell Collection Device during Congressional Testimony
Contrasts EsoCheck's powerful cell collection capabilities to "cruder, decades-old" technologies during comments on patient access to medical technology innovation NEW YORK, Feb. 15, 2024 /PRNewswire/
Article Description
Background: Endoscopic screening for Barrett’s esophagus (BE) is common, costly, and underperformed in at-risk people. A non-endoscopic cell collection device can be used to collect esophageal cells, enabling BE screening. Aims: This study assessed the acceptability and adequacy of a commercial non-endoscopic cell collection device in a US population. Methods: Six sites enrolled patients with confirmed BE or heartburn/regurgitation for ≥ 6 months. Patients underwent administration of the device, consisting of a sponge encapsulated in a capsule. The capsule dwelled in the stomach for 7.5 min and was retracted via an attached suture. An adequate sample was ≥ 1 columnar cell by H&E staining. Sample quality was rated using a 0–5 scale, with 0 = no columnar cells and 5 = plentiful groups. Trefoil Factor 3 (TFF3) staining was performed. Accuracy was assessed using esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD)/biopsy as the gold standard. Results: Of 191 patients, 99.5% successfully swallowed the device. Overall sample adequacy was 91% (171/188), with 84% (158/188) high quality. The detachment rate was 2/190 (1%). Overall sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the assay with TFF3 staining were 76%, 77%, and 76%. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for ≥ 3 cm BE were 86%, 77%, and 82%. Asked if willing to repeat the procedure, 93% would, and 65% indicated a preference for the device over EGD. Conclusions: This study demonstrated a high rate of sample adequacy and promising acceptability of this non-endoscopic sampling device in a US population. Diagnostic characteristics suggest that non-endoscopic assessment of BE deserves further development as an alternative to endoscopy.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85100344830&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10620-021-06833-6; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33532971; https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10620-021-06833-6; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10620-021-06833-6; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10620-021-06833-6
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know