Marques de Sá I, Marcos P, Sharma P, Dinis-Ribeiro M. The global prevalence of Barrett's esophagus: A systematic review of the published literature.
United European Gastroenterol J 2020;
8:1086-1105. [PMID:
32631176 PMCID:
PMC7724547 DOI:
10.1177/2050640620939376]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/23/2020] [Accepted: 06/04/2020] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Determining the prevalence of Barrett's esophagus is important for defining screening strategies. We aimed to synthesize the available data, determine Barrett's esophagus prevalence, and assess variability.
METHODS
Three databases were searched. Subgroup, sensitivity, and meta-regression analyses were conducted and pooled prevalence was computed.
RESULTS
Of 3510 studies, 103 were included. In the general population, we estimated a prevalence for endoscopic suspicion of Barrett's esophagus of (a) any length with histologic confirmation of intestinal metaplasia as 0.96% (95% confidence interval: 0.85-1.07), (b) ≥1 cm of length with histologic confirmation of intestinal metaplasia as 0.96% (95% confidence interval: 0.75-1.18) and (c) for any length with histologic confirmation of columnar metaplasia as 3.89% (95% confidence interval: 2.25-5.54) . By excluding studies with high-risk of bias, the prevalence decreased to: (a) 0.70% (95% confidence interval: 0.61-0.79) and (b) 0.82% (95% confidence interval: 0.63-1.01). In gastroesophageal reflux disease patients, we estimated the prevalence with afore-mentioned criteria to be: (a) 7.21% (95% confidence interval: 5.61-8.81) (b) 6.72% (95% confidence interval: 3.61-9.83) and (c) 7.80% (95% confidence interval: 4.26-11.34). The Barrett's esophagus prevalence was significantly influenced by time period, region, Barrett's esophagus definition, Seattle protocol, and study design. There was a significant gradient East-West and North-South. There were minimal to no data available for several countries. Moreover, there was significant heterogeneity between studies.
CONCLUSION
There is a need to reassess the true prevalence of Barrett's esophagus using the current guidelines in most regions. Having knowledge about the precise Barrett's esophagus prevalence, diverse attitudes from educational to screening programs could be taken.
Collapse