Summary table of conference abstract data relating to dedicated Barrett’s services
| Study | Study design | Dedicated service | Sites | Participants/sample size (n) | Study duration | Dysplasia detection rate | Seattle protocol adherence | Prague classification/delineation | Appropriate scheduling of follow-up | Notes |
| Chadwick et al, Abstract62 | Retrospective audit | Audit from 2018 compared with audit after introduction of dedicated service in 2019 | Single-district general setting | n=180 (n=44 from dedicated list, n=136 from previous audit) | Retrospective data collected from 2018 (12 months), audit repeated after 6 months | Non-dedicated: 7% (8/136) Dedicated: 16% (7/44) | Non-dedicated: 66% Dedicated: 100% (where required) | 122/136 (88%) vs 44/44 (100%) | Of the non-dedicated cases, only 47% had a prior known diagnosis of BO, retrospective data. | |
| Brogden and Haidry, Abstract63 | Retrospective cohort tertiary centre | Tertiary centre clinical nurse endoscopy post endoscopic therapy surveillance | Single tertiary centre | n=456 | 3 years | Dysplasia recurrence detected: 15.7% (no comparator group) | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Surveillance for prior dysplasia patients: saturated population, no control arm/comparator group in the Abstract |
| Stroud et al, Abstract21 | Cohort mixed retrospective/prospective design | Large teaching hospital, comparing operators with BO interest and familiarity with BSG guidelines to general endoscopist | Single centre | n=442 | 16 months | No histology data | Seattle biopsy protocol: 75% (136/181) vs 66% (173/261); χ2=4.09, p=0.0432 | Prague classification: 87% (157/181) vs 63% (165/261); χ2=31.04 p<0.0001) | Nil | Compared retrospective data from close to the BSG guidelines (2014–2015) to prospective data (2016–2017), no histological data |
| Dunn et al, Abstract64 | Prospective audit | Not defined in abstract | Multicentre, 6/13 had dedicated service | n=137 Non-dedicated: n=69 Dedicated: n=68 | 1 Month | 2.9% vs 2.9% (N/S) | n/a | Documented in 97% in dedicated vs 68% non-dedicated (p=0.0001) | Accurate follow-up schedule better with database | Small participant numbers despite multicentre, short duration |
| Khosla et al, Abstract65 | Retrospective cohort, prededicated and postdedicated lists being established | Not defined | Single centre | Preimplementation: n=120 Dedicated list: n=27 | Not specified | n/a | Dedicated list: 100% vs 64% | Dedicated: 100% Non-dedicated: 32% | Appropriate allocation to surveillance dedicated 80% vs 55% non-dedicated | Single-centre small number in dedicated arm retrospective design |
| Phillpotts et al, Abstract66 | Retrospective cohort | Dedicated list | Single centre | n=76 | 1 year | No differences (data not provided) | Dedicated=49% Routine=58% | 85% vs 32% (p≤0.0001) | n/a | Single centre, low numbers, poor Seattle adherence for both groups |
| Al-hasani et al, Abstract67 | Retrospective cohort | Nurse-led dedicated service | Single centre | n=100 general n=105 dedicated | Compared 2012–2013 (general lists) to 2014–2016 (dedicated list) | 8/105 (7.6%) on the DBO list and 6/100 (6%) in the general endoscopy (GE) group | Dedicated 74% vs general 30% | Dedicated list 94% vs 5% general | n/a | Different times which bisect the BSG guideline—general list data predated the guideline |
| Kurup et al, Abstract68 | Retrospective cohort | Gastroenterologist with special interest | Single centre | General: n=151 Dedicated: n=87 | Years 2008–2009 for the general list, years 2010–2011 for the dedicated list | Greater detection but non-significant (no data included) | n/a | n/a | n/a | Predates the BSG guideline single-centre retrospective design |
BO, Barrett’s oesophagus; BSG, British Society of Gastroenterology; DBO, dysplastic Barrett's oesophagus; HGD, high-grade dysplasia; LGD, low-grade dysplasia; N/S, not significant; OAC, oesophageal adenocarcinoma.