BACKGROUND: The accuracy of a Barrett's esophagus diagnosis is not well studied. OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to evaluate the accuracy of a clinical Barrett's esophagus diagnosis and the reproducibility of an esophageal intestinal metaplasia diagnosis. METHODS: All patients with a Barrett's esophagus diagnosis between 1994 and 2005 were identified by use of International Classification of Disease (ICD) and Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine (SNOMED) coding. Subsets received manual record review (endoscopy/pathology reports), slide review by a referral pathologist (interrater reliability), and 2 blinded reviews by the same pathologist (intrarater reliability). SETTING: An integrated health services delivery system. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Accuracy of electronic clinical diagnosis and reproducibility of esophageal intestinal metaplasia diagnosis. RESULTS: A total of 2470 patients coded with Barrett's esophagus underwent record review; a subgroup (616) received manual pathology slide review. Review confirmed a Barrett's esophagus diagnosis for 1533 (61.9%) patients: 437 of 798 subjects (54.8%) with a SNOMED diagnosis alone, 153 of 671 subjects (26.8%) with an ICD diagnosis alone, and 940 of 1101 subjects (85%) who had both a SNOMED and an ICD diagnosis. The same metaplasia diagnosis occurred with 88.3% of subjects (original vs referral pathologist, interrater reliability; kappa = .42, 95% CI, 0.34-0.48). The referral pathologist made the same metaplasia diagnosis twice for a given patient for 88.6% of subjects (intrarater reliability, 2 reviews by same pathologist; kappa = 0.65, 95% CI, 0.35-0.93). LIMITATIONS: The accuracy of a Barrett's esophagus diagnosis likely represents the minimum number, given the strict criteria. CONCLUSIONS: A community pathologist's diagnosis of esophageal intestinal metaplasia is likely to be confirmed by a referral pathologist. Electronic diagnoses of Barrett's esophagus overestimate the prevalence, although they are usually confirmed in patients with both a SNOMED and ICD diagnosis of Barrett's esophagus.
BACKGROUND: The accuracy of a Barrett's esophagus diagnosis is not well studied. OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to evaluate the accuracy of a clinical Barrett's esophagus diagnosis and the reproducibility of an esophageal intestinal metaplasia diagnosis. METHODS: All patients with a Barrett's esophagus diagnosis between 1994 and 2005 were identified by use of International Classification of Disease (ICD) and Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine (SNOMED) coding. Subsets received manual record review (endoscopy/pathology reports), slide review by a referral pathologist (interrater reliability), and 2 blinded reviews by the same pathologist (intrarater reliability). SETTING: An integrated health services delivery system. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Accuracy of electronic clinical diagnosis and reproducibility of esophageal intestinal metaplasia diagnosis. RESULTS: A total of 2470 patients coded with Barrett's esophagus underwent record review; a subgroup (616) received manual pathology slide review. Review confirmed a Barrett's esophagus diagnosis for 1533 (61.9%) patients: 437 of 798 subjects (54.8%) with a SNOMED diagnosis alone, 153 of 671 subjects (26.8%) with an ICD diagnosis alone, and 940 of 1101 subjects (85%) who had both a SNOMED and an ICD diagnosis. The same metaplasia diagnosis occurred with 88.3% of subjects (original vs referral pathologist, interrater reliability; kappa = .42, 95% CI, 0.34-0.48). The referral pathologist made the same metaplasia diagnosis twice for a given patient for 88.6% of subjects (intrarater reliability, 2 reviews by same pathologist; kappa = 0.65, 95% CI, 0.35-0.93). LIMITATIONS: The accuracy of a Barrett's esophagus diagnosis likely represents the minimum number, given the strict criteria. CONCLUSIONS: A community pathologist's diagnosis of esophageal intestinal metaplasia is likely to be confirmed by a referral pathologist. Electronic diagnoses of Barrett's esophagus overestimate the prevalence, although they are usually confirmed in patients with both a SNOMED and ICD diagnosis of Barrett's esophagus.
Authors: Prateek Sharma; Kenneth McQuaid; John Dent; M Brian Fennerty; Richard Sampliner; Stuart Spechler; Alan Cameron; Douglas Corley; Gary Falk; John Goldblum; John Hunter; Janusz Jankowski; Lars Lundell; Brian Reid; Nicholas J Shaheen; Amnon Sonnenberg; Kenneth Wang; Wilfred Weinstein Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: B J Reid; R C Haggitt; C E Rubin; G Roth; C M Surawicz; G Van Belle; K Lewin; W M Weinstein; D A Antonioli; H Goldman Journal: Hum Pathol Date: 1988-02 Impact factor: 3.466
Authors: E Montgomery; M P Bronner; J R Goldblum; J K Greenson; M M Haber; J Hart; L W Lamps; G Y Lauwers; A J Lazenby; D N Lewin; M E Robert; A Y Toledano; Y Shyr; K Washington Journal: Hum Pathol Date: 2001-04 Impact factor: 3.466
Authors: Sonja Kroep; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Joel H Rubenstein; Harry J de Koning; Reinier Meester; John M Inadomi; Marjolein van Ballegooijen Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2015-04-29 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Amanda B Muir; Elizabeth T Jensen; Joshua B Wechsler; Paul Menard-Katcher; Gary W Falk; Seema S Aceves; Glenn T Furuta; Evan S Dellon; Mark E Rothenberg; Jonathan M Spergel Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract Date: 2019-03-25
Authors: Michael B Cook; Sally B Coburn; Jameson R Lam; Philip R Taylor; Jennifer L Schneider; Douglas A Corley Journal: Gut Date: 2017-01-04 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Douglas A Corley; Kunal Mehtani; Charles Quesenberry; Wei Zhao; Jolanda de Boer; Noel S Weiss Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2013-05-11 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Cadman L Leggett; Emmanuel C Gorospe; Andrew D Calvin; William S Harmsen; Alan R Zinsmeister; Sean Caples; Virend K Somers; Kelly Dunagan; Lori Lutzke; Kenneth K Wang; Prasad G Iyer Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2013-09-11 Impact factor: 11.382