A crosssectional analysis of Facebook comments to study public perception of a new diagnostic test called the Cytosponge

Social media provides a useful platform for informal discussions about healthcare. Acceptability is key to the uptake of diagnostic devices and this can be difficult to gauge from questionnaires and qualitative studies. The aim of this study is to investigate whether Facebook could be used to gauge public perception toward uptake of a new diagnostic test for Barrett's esophagus called the Cytosponge. We retrospectively reviewed Facebook comments relating to a video on the Cytosponge. We categorized comments into: (1) Positive, (2) Negative, (3) Unknown and (4) Questions. Recurring themes that arose were compared to a qualitative study on the Cytosponge. The video received 22.5 million views and 2837 comments within four months. Of these, 525 comments were positive, 215 were unknown, 179 were negative, 71 were questions, and 1847 were 'Tagged' comments. Among positive comments, recurrent themes were that it was innovative, could lead to early cancer-detection, and more favorable than endoscopy. Among negative comments, a recurring theme was concern about the risk of gagging and vomiting. Among 'questions', a recurring theme was related to the risk of Cytosponge detachment. We compared our analysis to a published qualitative study and found similar themes arose across both studies. Facebook provides a rich source of qualitative data, which could be used to augment studies to gauge public perception toward a new diagnostic test.

Safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive esophagectomies versus open esophagectomies: an umbrella review

Traditionally, esophageal oncological resections have been performed via open approaches with well-documented levels of morbidity and mortality complicating the postoperative course. In contemporary terms, minimally invasive approaches have garnered sustained support in all areas of surgery, and there has been an exponential adaptation of this technology in upper GI surgery with the advent of laparoscopic and robotic techniques. The current literature, while growing, is inconsistent in reporting on the benefits of minimally invasive esophagectomies (MIEs) and this makes it difficult to ascertain best practice. The objective of this review was to critically appraise the current evidence addressing the safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of MIEs versus open esophagectomies. A systematic review of the literature was performed by searching nine electronic databases to identify any systematic reviews published on this topic and recommended Joanna Briggs Institute approach to critical appraisal, study selection, data extraction and data synthesis was used to report the findings. A total of 13 systematic reviews of moderate to good quality encompassing 143 primary trials and 36,763 patients were included in the final synthesis. Eleven reviews examined safety parameters and found a generalized benefit of MIE. Efficacy was evaluated by eight systematic reviews and found each method to be equivalent. There were limited data to judiciously appraise cost-effectiveness as this was only evaluated in one review involving a single trial. There is improved safety and equivalent efficacy associated with MIE when compared with open esophagectomy. Cost-effectiveness of MIE cannot be sufficiently supported at this point in time. Further studies, especially those focused on cost-effectiveness are needed to strengthen the existing evidence to inform policy makers on feasibility of increased assimilation of this technology into clinical practice.