SynthesisBMJ open gastroenterology2025
Systematic mapping of registered interventional studies addressing the top 10 research priorities in Barrett's oesophagus and gastro-oesophageal reflux disease.
Synthesis in BMJ open gastroenterology, 2025. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe top 10 research priorities (RPs) for Barrett's oesophagus (BO) were published in 2017. This study aimed to identify the current research landscape on addressing RPs.
designSystematic mapping review. DATA SOURCES: ClinicalTrials.gov, EU Clinical Trials Register and ISRCTN registry. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Adult (>18 years) interventional studies registered in those three registers from 31 August 2017 to 1 July 2024 and addressing any of the top 10 RPs were eligible. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two researchers extracted data using prespecified tables, from the three registers and pooled them together.
resultsWe identified clinical trials (n=735) registered in the last 7 years (ClinicalTrials.gov (611), EU Clinical Trials (63), ISRCTN (61)), and 244 were included as they addressed RPs, after removing 14 duplicates. Most studies (168/244, 69%) addressed RP8 (searching alternative treatments for reflux), including medicinal products (86/168 (51%)), surgical methods (29/168 (17%)) and endoscopic methods (26/168 (15%)). There were 41/244 (17%) trials registered aiming investigations for screening and surveillance of BO in a primary care setting (RP3). 92% of studies were distributed among RP8, RP3 and RP5. The remaining RPs (RP1, RP2, EP4, RP6, RP7 and RP9) had only 8% of 244 studies, while the RP10 had none.
conclusionA higher concentration of studies on RP8, RP3 and RP5 may demonstrate the high clinical and global commercial demand on them, while the scarcity of trials for RP1, RP2, RP4, RP6, RP7, RP9 and RP10 unveils gaps in research meeting priorities. This unequal distribution of the trial landscape raises the question: do we correctly address the RPs?
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.