A138 EVALUATING THE ACCEPTABILITY AND EFFICACY OF CYTOSPONGE FOR BARRETT’S ESOPHAGUS: A SINGLE CENTRE CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Barrett’s Esophagus (BE) is a pre-malignant condition defined by the presence of metaplastic columnar epithelial cells above the gastroesophageal junction. Once metaplasia is present, there is a 0.5% annual risk of progression to dysplasia and ultimately adenocarcinoma. Cytosponge is a new device and technique to diagnose BE. Furthermore, this test has a strong safety profile. Research showed increased patient tolerance for the Cytosponge compared to endoscopy; however, this has not been demonstrated in a Canadian setting. Ideally, patient acceptability of Cytosponge device should be evaluated before its integration in a Canadian context. Aims To assess patient acceptability, tolerability and integration of Cytosponge in the diagnosis of Barrett’s Esophagus in a Canadian healthcare setting. We also assessed the ease of use and familiarity with Cytosponge. Methods A single-centre, prospective cross-sectional study was conducted to evaluate the acceptability and comfort of patients undergoing Cytosponge procedure. Outpatients referred for EGD for Barrett’s Esophagus at St. Paul’s Hospital between 03/21-08/24 were included. 74 patients with BE have been enrolled in this project. Acceptability was evaluated through Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Spielberger State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), and Impact of Events Scale (IOES) on the day of procedure, day 7, and day 90 post-procedure. Data from health care providers administering the Cytosponge were collected using the System Usability Scale (SUS). One-way ANOVA and Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference tests were completed to assess score differences between follow-ups. Results A total of 74 patients met the inclusion criteria and consented. 89.2% were successful in swallowing Cytosponge, 10.8% were unsuccessful. ANOVA test were statistically significant in VAS scores between day 0 and day 7, day 0 and day 90 with a p-value 0.006 and 0.00005 respectively. Average STAI scores pre- and post-Cytosponge were 41.7 (SD 3.1) and 40.7 (SD 4.4), ANOVA analysis of STAI scores between groups showed no statistical significance. The average IOES score at day 0 was 1.7 (SD 3.4), day 7 1.1, and day 90 0.7. There was no statistically significant difference in IOES scores at follow-up. Conclusions Our results demonstrate that Cytosponge is well tolerated in a Canadian healthcare setting. Average STAI and IOES scores were comparable at follow up. Additionally they were not statistically significant suggesting that patients found Cytosponge an acceptable. A score of 68 and above is above average on SUS which measures usability of Cytosponge. The average SUS score in this sample was 55.2 this suggests that there is a learning curve for healthcare providers to become familiar with Cytosponge. There were no complications with Cytosponge in this sample. Expanded and retrieved Cytosponge device Funding Agencies Gastroenterology Institute of Research Institute
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».