BMJ open gastroenterology · 2025
Systematic mapping of registered interventional studies addressing the top 10 research priorities in Barrett's oesophagus and gastro-oesophageal reflux disease.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gamakaranage Champika, Ratcliffe Elizabeth, Britton James, Butler Thomas, Keld Richard, Prasad Neeraj, Hamdy Shaheen, McLaughlin John, Ang Yeng
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The top 10 research priorities (RPs) for Barrett's oesophagus (BO) were published in 2017. This study aimed to identify the current research landscape on addressing RPs.
DESIGN: Systematic mapping review.
DATA SOURCES: ClinicalTrials.gov, EU Clinical Trials Register and ISRCTN registry.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Adult (>18 years) interventional studies registered in those three registers from 31 August 2017 to 1 July 2024 and addressing any of the top 10 RPs were eligible.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two researchers extracted data using prespecified tables, from the three registers and pooled them together.
RESULTS: We identified clinical trials (n=735) registered in the last 7 years (ClinicalTrials.gov (611), EU Clinical Trials (63), ISRCTN (61)), and 244 were included as they addressed RPs, after removing 14 duplicates. Most studies (168/244, 69%) addressed RP8 (searching alternative treatments for reflux), including medicinal products (86/168 (51%)), surgical methods (29/168 (17%)) and endoscopic methods (26/168 (15%)). There were 41/244 (17%) trials registered aiming investigations for screening and surveillance of BO in a primary care setting (RP3). 92% of studies were distributed among RP8, RP3 and RP5. The remaining RPs (RP1, RP2, EP4, RP6, RP7 and RP9) had only 8% of 244 studies, while the RP10 had none.
CONCLUSION: A higher concentration of studies on RP8, RP3 and RP5 may demonstrate the high clinical and global commercial demand on them, while the scarcity of trials for RP1, RP2, RP4, RP6, RP7, RP9 and RP10 unveils gaps in research meeting priorities. This unequal distribution of the trial landscape raises the question: do we correctly address the RPs?
DESIGN: Systematic mapping review.
DATA SOURCES: ClinicalTrials.gov, EU Clinical Trials Register and ISRCTN registry.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Adult (>18 years) interventional studies registered in those three registers from 31 August 2017 to 1 July 2024 and addressing any of the top 10 RPs were eligible.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two researchers extracted data using prespecified tables, from the three registers and pooled them together.
RESULTS: We identified clinical trials (n=735) registered in the last 7 years (ClinicalTrials.gov (611), EU Clinical Trials (63), ISRCTN (61)), and 244 were included as they addressed RPs, after removing 14 duplicates. Most studies (168/244, 69%) addressed RP8 (searching alternative treatments for reflux), including medicinal products (86/168 (51%)), surgical methods (29/168 (17%)) and endoscopic methods (26/168 (15%)). There were 41/244 (17%) trials registered aiming investigations for screening and surveillance of BO in a primary care setting (RP3). 92% of studies were distributed among RP8, RP3 and RP5. The remaining RPs (RP1, RP2, EP4, RP6, RP7 and RP9) had only 8% of 244 studies, while the RP10 had none.
CONCLUSION: A higher concentration of studies on RP8, RP3 and RP5 may demonstrate the high clinical and global commercial demand on them, while the scarcity of trials for RP1, RP2, RP4, RP6, RP7, RP9 and RP10 unveils gaps in research meeting priorities. This unequal distribution of the trial landscape raises the question: do we correctly address the RPs?