MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2032787995 · doi:10.1097/00008469-200102000-00012

The UK National Barrettʼs Oesophagus Registry (UKBOR): aims and progress

2001· article· en· W2032787995 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
C P J Caygill, P I Reed, Anthony Watson, M J Hill

Notice bibliographique

RevueEuropean Journal of Cancer Prevention · 2001
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueEsophageal Cancer Research and Treatment
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésBarrett's oesophagusMedicineDysplasiaCancer registryIncidence (geometry)Natural historyFamily medicineGeneral surgeryLibrary scienceCancerInternal medicineAdenocarcinoma

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction Following 6 months of initial discussions and successful fund-raising the UK National Barrett's Oesophagus Registry (UKBOR) was set up in June 1996 as a joint initiative between the European Cancer Prevention Organisation (ECP) and the Oesophageal Section of the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG). A Scientific Advisory Committee was formed composed of gastroenterologists, histopathologists, molecular biologists, epidemiologists and surgeons. Aims The aims of the Registry are to establish a national database of diagnosed cases of Barrett's oesophagus (BO) from all parts of the United Kingdom in order to provide information on: •Prevalence of diagnosed cases, regional variations and variations with time. •Natural history and influence of medical, endoscopic and surgical treatment. •Incidence of adenocarcinoma (AC) in Barrett's oesophagus (BO). •Rate of progression of BO to AC. •Factors influencing rate of progression of BO to AC. Also to provide a central resource for histopathological confirmation of high-grade dysplasia, for molecular genetic studies and for all publications on BO, which may be accessed by BSG and ECP members, and to provide a database and coordinating infrastructure for prospective studies in BO. Recording of data The registration form has already been published (Caygill et al., 1998; see Appendix). Hospitals are asked to send data to the Registry either on this form or as a computer printout giving the same information. This form contains data that enable us to calculate M:F ratios, age profile at diagnosis and regional variations. It also contains information that will enable us to access hospital records at a future date and to ‘flag’ the patients with the National Health Register, so that we can obtain death certificates. We also have a second form designed to give information on symptoms, medication, lifestyle factors such as smoking, alcohol intake, height and weight, information on all endoscopies, details of pathology, H. pylori status and related conditions. In addition to the data record forms, we have also asked the hospitals for their diagnostic criteria and surveillance programmes. This has highlighted one of the biggest problems faced by the Registry, which needs to be addressed. To date 24 hospitals have sent us their diagnostic criteria. Of these, one stated that they did not have any. The position amongst the other 23 is summarized in Table 1Table 1: UKBOR variation in diagnostic criteria in 23 hospitals. There do not appear to be any consistent diagnostic criteria, with the length of columnarized segment varying from any length to >4 cm. Not all patients are biopsied. Although most hospitals biopsy all their Barrett's patients, two biopsy fewer than 20% of those diagnosed endoscopically. In the UK there is only one hospital with a formal surveillance programme and two hospitals have informal surveillance programmes. One hospital has a surveillance programme for specialized intestinal metaplasia. A BSG committee has been set up by one of us (Dr Anthony Watson) to address these issues. Current position To date over 6500 patients from 36 hospitals have been registered. A number of analyses have been performed which have produced three peer reviewed papers and 12 abstracts. A list of these publications is given in the Appendix. Conclusions from analyses The analyses emanating from the Registry have so far produced the following conclusions: •In spite of marked differences in diagnostic criteria patient characteristics between the different centres are very similar. •More BO is detected in males than females (M:F = 1.7). •Mean age at diagnosis is higher in females than in males. •Peak age at diagnosis is a decade higher in females than in males, but there is some regional variation. •In males BO progresses to AC at twice the rate as in females. •These patient characteristics have remained consistent throughout the Registry's evolution, whether the analysis was of nine centres with 2103 BO patients, of 20 centres with 4261 BO patients or 27 centres with 5717 BO patients. •The rate of new BO cases as a percentage of total endoscopies has risen continuously between 1977 and 1996. •In a cohort of 102 British BO patients 31% of men and 71% of women under the age of 50 were obese (BMI >30). •Obesity prevalence in those aged >50 years was lower and corresponded to the general UK population. •Obesity may be an important co-factor in BO development through its effect on gastro-oesophageal reflux. BO Registries – the future National BO Registries are feasible and the lifestyle data gathered could be easily analysed to give valuable information on the aetiology and natural history of BO and the pathological steps that lead to its progression to AC. In future the data stored could be used to generate studies seeking either to prevent BO or prevent its progression to AC. A European/International network of BO Registries, exchanging and pooling data and information, would be an invaluable medical resource. To date nine European countries have expressed an interest in establishing National Registries based on the UK model. Four centres in the USA and two centres in Canada have expressed an interest in establishing Regional Registries on the same model. Acknowledgements— We wish to thank the Childwick Trust, The RL St J Harmsworth Memorial Fund and the David and Frederick Barclay foundation for their financial support for UKBOR.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,610
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,236

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,025
Tête enseignante GPT0,355
Écart entre enseignants0,330 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations5
Publié2001
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueEuropean Journal of Cancer PreventionMême sujetEsophageal Cancer Research and TreatmentTravaux en français237 207