GOALS: To determine patient preference for the Barrett esophagus (BE) screening techniques. BACKGROUND:Sedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy (sEGD) and unsedated transnasal endoscopy (uTNE) are both potential techniques for BE screening. However, systematic assessment of patient preference for these 2 techniques is lacking. As part of a comparative effectiveness randomized trial of BE screening modalities, we measured short-term patient preferences for the following approaches: in-clinic uTNE (huTNE), mobile-based uTNE (muTNE), and sEGD using a novel assessment instrument. STUDY: Consenting community patients without known BE were randomly assigned to receive huTNE, muTNE, or sEGD, followed by a telephone administered preference and tolerability assessment instrument 24 hours after study procedures. Patient preference was measured by the waiting trade-off method. RESULTS: In total, 201 patients completed screening with huTNE (n=71), muTNE (n=71), or sEGD (n=59), and a telephone interview. Patients' preferences for sEGD and uTNE using the waiting trade-off method were comparable (P=0.51). Although tolerability scores were superior for sEGD (P<0.001) compared with uTNE, scores for uTNE examinations were acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: Patient preference is comparable between sEGD and uTNE for diagnostic examinations conducted in an endoscopy suite or in a mobile setting. Given acceptable tolerability, uTNE may be a viable alternative to sEGD for BE screening.
RCT Entities:
GOALS: To determine patient preference for the Barrett esophagus (BE) screening techniques. BACKGROUND: Sedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy (sEGD) and unsedated transnasal endoscopy (uTNE) are both potential techniques for BE screening. However, systematic assessment of patient preference for these 2 techniques is lacking. As part of a comparative effectiveness randomized trial of BE screening modalities, we measured short-term patient preferences for the following approaches: in-clinic uTNE (huTNE), mobile-based uTNE (muTNE), and sEGD using a novel assessment instrument. STUDY: Consenting community patients without known BE were randomly assigned to receive huTNE, muTNE, or sEGD, followed by a telephone administered preference and tolerability assessment instrument 24 hours after study procedures. Patient preference was measured by the waiting trade-off method. RESULTS: In total, 201 patients completed screening with huTNE (n=71), muTNE (n=71), or sEGD (n=59), and a telephone interview. Patients' preferences for sEGD and uTNE using the waiting trade-off method were comparable (P=0.51). Although tolerability scores were superior for sEGD (P<0.001) compared with uTNE, scores for uTNE examinations were acceptable. CONCLUSIONS:Patient preference is comparable between sEGD and uTNE for diagnostic examinations conducted in an endoscopy suite or in a mobile setting. Given acceptable tolerability, uTNE may be a viable alternative to sEGD for BE screening.
Authors: Smita L S Halder; G Richard Locke; Cathy D Schleck; Alan R Zinsmeister; L Joseph Melton; Nicholas J Talley Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2007-06-20 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Kee Wook Jung; Nicholas J Talley; Yvonne Romero; David A Katzka; Cathy D Schleck; Alan R Zinsmeister; Kelly T Dunagan; Lori S Lutzke; Tsung-Teh Wu; Kenneth K Wang; Mary Frederickson; Debra M Geno; G Richard Locke; Ganapathy A Prasad Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2011-04-12 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: J Shannon Swan; François Sainfort; William F Lawrence; Vipat Kuruchittham; Thitima Kongnakorn; Dennis M Heisey Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Nicholas J Shaheen; Prateek Sharma; Bergein F Overholt; Herbert C Wolfsen; Richard E Sampliner; Kenneth K Wang; Joseph A Galanko; Mary P Bronner; John R Goldblum; Ana E Bennett; Blair A Jobe; Glenn M Eisen; M Brian Fennerty; John G Hunter; David E Fleischer; Virender K Sharma; Robert H Hawes; Brenda J Hoffman; Richard I Rothstein; Stuart R Gordon; Hiroshi Mashimo; Kenneth J Chang; V Raman Muthusamy; Steven A Edmundowicz; Stuart J Spechler; Ali A Siddiqui; Rhonda F Souza; Anthony Infantolino; Gary W Falk; Michael B Kimmey; Ryan D Madanick; Amitabh Chak; Charles J Lightdale Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-05-28 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: M Kareem Shariff; Elizabeth L Bird-Lieberman; Maria O'Donovan; Zarah Abdullahi; Xinxue Liu; Jane Blazeby; Rebecca Fitzgerald Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2012-03-14 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: John J McGoran; Mark E McAlindon; Prasad G Iyer; Eric J Seibel; Rehan Haidry; Laurence B Lovat; Sarmed S Sami Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2019-08-14 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Jasmijn Sijben; Yonne Peters; Kim van der Velden; Linda Rainey; Peter D Siersema; Mireille J M Broeders Journal: EClinicalMedicine Date: 2022-04-04
Authors: John McGoran; Andrea Bennett; Joanne Cooper; John De Caestecker; Laurence B Lovat; Neil Guha; Krish Ragunath; Sarmed S Sami Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-12-11 Impact factor: 2.692