Global status of research on Barrett’s esophagus based on the Web of Science core collection (2016–2025): a bibliometric analysis

Introduction

Barrett’s esophagus (BE) is a recognized precancerous state defined by the histological transformation of the standard squamous epithelium into specialized intestinal metaplasia (1), and it represents the most important known risk factor for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) (2). Over the past decade, the clinical management of BE has shifted from purely surveillance-based paradigms toward an era of endoscopic eradication therapy (EET), molecular risk stratification, non-endoscopic screening (e.g., capsule sponge) (3,4), and artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted dysplasia detection (5). This rapid translational evolution, combined with the heterogeneous adoption of guideline updates across regions, has produced an extensive but fragmented body of literature whose internal knowledge architecture is difficult to discern through traditional narrative reviews.

Scientometric evaluation provides a granular lens through which the shifting paradigms of BE management—from foundational epidemiology to precision intervention—can be systematically quantified (6). Unlike a narrative review, bibliometric analysis can answer questions that are otherwise invisible to qualitative synthesis: which institutional and national clusters drive the field, where international collaboration silos exist, how citation backbones reorganize when new guidelines are released, and which intellectual bridges connect epidemiology to advanced endoscopic therapy. By integrating visualization tools such as CiteSpace with traditional bibliometric indicators, researchers can map knowledge networks, identify influential authors and institutions, and detect emerging topics with high temporal relevance.

Despite extensive primary literature on BE, a comprehensive scientometric assessment that explicitly characterizes shifting research priorities, intellectual bridges, and the evolution of clinical practice paradigms over the past 10 years remains lacking. Therefore, this study systematically retrieved publications related to BE from the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) and conducted a series of bibliometric evaluations covering publication trends, cooperation networks, co-citation structures, and keyword clusters from 2016 to 2025. Through this approach, we aim to provide an in-depth overview of the global research status of BE, offering valuable insights for clinicians, researchers, and policymakers interested in the progression and future directions of this important field. We present this article in accordance with the BIBLIO reporting checklist (7) (available at https://jtd.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/jtd-2026-1-0279/rc).

Methods

Search strategy

The WoSCC served as the primary data source for the present bibliometric investigation. WoSCC was selected because it provides a standardized, citation-indexed corpus particularly suitable for co-citation and network analyses, with consistent metadata fields required by CiteSpace; the potential limitations of relying exclusively on WoSCC are explicitly acknowledged in the Discussion. A formal literature retrieval was conducted within this database on October 14, 2025, for all articles related to BE from 2016 to August 8, 2025. The detailed search strategy was: TI = Barrett’s Esophagus OR Barretts Esophagus OR Esophagus, Barrett’s OR Esophagus, Barrett OR Barrett’s Syndrome OR Barretts Syndrome OR Barrett Syndrome OR Barrett Metaplasia OR Barrett Metaplasias OR Metaplasia, Barrett OR Metaplasias, Barrett OR Barrett Epithelium OR Epithelium, Barrett.

Inclusion criteria

The eligibility requirements were defined as follows: the research articles were required to focus on the subject of BE.

Exclusion criteria

The exclusion criteria were as follows: (I) written in non-English; (II) letters, case reports, editorials, and meeting abstracts; (III) study not related to the research topic after browsing the titles and abstracts. Titles and abstracts were independently reviewed by two of our investigators (and) after the literature search. Full articles were retrieved and reviewed if abstracts met the inclusion criteria. Discordant opinions were resolved through consultation with a third investigator or group discussion.

Software and parameters

The yearly publication trends were quantified using EndNote version X9, while graphical illustrations were generated via GraphPad Prism version 9.3.1. The ten most productive journals were also identified through EndNote version X9. Subsequently, bibliometric techniques were applied to investigate various metrics—including authors, institutions, countries, co-cited journals, co-cited authors, co-cited references, and keywords—using CiteSpace software version 6.3.R1 (8). The operational parameters for CiteSpace in this research were configured as follows: the temporal range was defined from January 2015 to December 2025, with a time-slicing interval of one year. Individual node types were analyzed separately. The Cosine algorithm was employed to evaluate link strength within each slice, and the selection threshold was established to include the top 20 most frequent or highly cited items per interval.

In the resulting visualization, each node represents a specific author, institution, country, journal, reference, or keyword. The diameter of the nodes reflects the frequency of occurrence; in other words, a larger node signifies a higher occurrence frequency. A color gradient, shifting from brown to light yellow, denotes the chronological progression from 2015 to 2025. Similarly, connection lines between nodes illustrate collaborative, co-occurrence, or co-citation ties, with their colors also indicating the years from 2015 to 2025. Within the co-citation analysis, nodes characterized by a purple outer ring signify high betweenness centrality, a metric used to quantify the structural importance of a node based on the Brandes algorithm. Consequently, these references with high betweenness centrality may serve as pivotal intellectual bridges within the relevant research field.

Interpretation of key bibliometric indicators

To assist clinical readers in interpreting CiteSpace outputs, two key indicators are defined here. Betweenness centrality quantifies the extent to which a node lies on the shortest paths between other nodes in the co-citation network; references with high betweenness centrality (typically ≥0.10, shown with a purple outer ring) function as intellectual bridges that connect otherwise separate research themes and often correspond to landmark guidelines or pivotal trials. Burst strength measures the intensity of a sudden surge in citations or keyword occurrences over a defined time window using Kleinberg’s burst-detection algorithm; high burst strength identifies emerging or rapidly declining research fronts, allowing readers to track shifts in clinical attention—for example, the recent burst in “endoscopic eradication therapy” and “artificial intelligence” reflects practice-changing momentum rather than steady-state interest.

Statistical analysis

This bibliometric study was primarily descriptive in nature and did not involve inferential hypothesis testing. Publication counts and the productivity of countries, institutions, authors, and journals were summarized as frequencies and rankings using EndNote X9, with annual trends visualized in GraphPad Prism 9.3.1. Network-based bibliometric indicators—including collaboration and co-citation link strength (Cosine algorithm), betweenness centrality, and keyword co-occurrence—together with keyword burst detection (Kleinberg’s burst-detection algorithm), were computed using CiteSpace 6.3.R1, as detailed in Sections 2.4 and 2.5. Consistent with standard bibliometric/scientometric methodology, no P values, confidence intervals, or significance thresholds were generated.

Results

Literature screening

The initial search of the WoSCC identified 3,057 records related to BE. As illustrated in Figure 1, a total of 1,807 documents—comprising letters, case reports, editorials, and meeting abstracts—were excluded during the first round of screening due to their limited methodological rigor and incompatibility with bibliometric evaluation. This step reduced the dataset to 1,250 articles eligible for further assessment.

Figure 1 Flow chart of literature screening.

Subsequently, 11 additional papers were removed because they were written in languages other than English, ensuring linguistic consistency for citation and keyword analyses. After completing the multistage screening process, 1,239 studies were retained for the final bibliometric analysis. These publications constitute the core body of research on BE over the past decade and form the foundation for subsequent analyses, including cooperation patterns, annual publication trends, co-citation networks, co-occurrence mapping, keyword clustering, and burst detection.

Annual publication trend

As shown in Figure 2, the annual number of publications related to BE fluctuated over the past decade rather than following a strictly linear pattern. Research output remained relatively stable from 2016 to 2019, followed by a noticeable increase around 2020–2021, during which publication activity reached its highest point within the observed window. This mid-decade rise likely reflects heightened interest driven by advances in endoscopic therapy and risk-stratification strategies.

Figure 2 Annual publications related to Barrett’s esophagus in the past 10 years.

After 2021, a relative reduction in annual publications was observed, with a more marked drop during 2024–2025. This apparent decline should be interpreted with caution, as it is partly attributable to indexing delays in the most recent years rather than to a genuine loss of scientific interest. The overall pattern demonstrates sustained attention to BE throughout the decade, indicating continuous scientific engagement despite shifts in research priorities.

Cooperation networks

Country collaborations

As shown in Figure 3A, the USA occupies the core of the collaboration network. This dominance is supported by quantitative productivity data in Table 1, where the USA ranks first with 669 publications, far exceeding other countries such as the UK (n=142), the Netherlands (n=130), China (n=94), and Japan (n=93). These highly productive countries also appear as large nodes in the cooperation map, forming a dense and influential international collaborative structure.

Figure 3 Collaborative networks associated with Barrett’s esophagus over the previous decade. (A) Regional cooperation network among countries; (B) institutional partnership network among organizations; (C) professional collaboration network among individual authors.

Institutional collaborations

The institutional collaboration patterns in Figure 3B are consistent with productivity rankings shown in Table 2. The Mayo Clinic leads globally with 125 articles, followed by institutions such as University of Kansas (n=61), Columbia University (n=53), University of North Carolina (n=53), and Baylor College of Medicine (n=52). These institutions also occupy central positions in Figure 3B, reinforcing their roles as research hubs driving multicenter clinical and translational studies.

Author collaborations

Figure 3C highlights several influential authors who form the backbone of collaborative networks. Their prominence aligns with the quantitative author productivity in Table 3, where Prasad G. Iyer (70 articles), Nicholas J. Shaheen (62 articles), Kenneth K. Wang (45 articles), Prateek Sharma (44 articles), and Sachin Wani (37 articles) rank among the most productive researchers. These authors appear as major nodes within the map, indicating sustained leadership and extensive partnership networks in BE research.

Co-citation networks

Before analyzing co-cited sources, productivity patterns across journals also provide insight into the dissemination of BE research. As shown in Table 4, the most productive journals over the past decade include Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (78 articles), Digestive Diseases and Sciences (62 articles), Diseases of the Esophagus (49 articles), and American Journal of Gastroenterology (41 articles). Many of these journals—particularly Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Endoscopy, and Gastroenterology—are Q1 Journal Citation Report (JCR) journals, reflecting that research output in this field is concentrated in high-impact platforms with strong visibility and clinical relevance.

Journal co-citation

The major co-cited journals observed in Figure 4A correspond closely with the bibliometric rankings in Table 5. Gastroenterology leads with 1,120 citations, followed by American Journal of Gastroenterology (1,037 citations), Gut (995 citations), and Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (796 citations). All four also appear as central nodes in Figure 4A, reflecting their foundational roles in shaping the knowledge base of the field.

Figure 4 Co-citation structures associated with Barrett’s esophagus within the preceding 10-year period.

Author co-citation

Figure 4B demonstrates that authors such as Shaheen NJ and Spechler SJ occupy the most prominent positions. This observation is confirmed in Table 6, where Shaheen leads with 648 citations, followed by Spechler (529 citations), Sharma (514 citations), Fitzgerald (399 citations), and Hvid-Jensen (293 citations). The alignment between the visual and tabulated data indicates strong consensus around these scholars‘ foundational contributions.

Co-cited reference timeline

The landmark publications highlighted in Figure 5 are also reflected in Table 7, where the most frequently co-cited works include the 2016 American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) Clinical Guideline by Shaheen (242 citations), the 2014 British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) guideline by Fitzgerald (142 citations), the 2019 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guideline by Qumseya (119 citations), and several influential trial-based or guideline-driven papers. The clusters presented in Figure 5 (#0–#5) further align with the thematic emphasis of these highly cited guidelines and consensus statements, illustrating how clinical practice recommendations have shaped citation patterns and guided shifts in research focus—from early therapeutic approaches (#1, #5) to cancer risk assessment (#2, #3) and emerging technologies (#4).

Figure 5 Chronological timeline visualization of co-cited references associated with Barrett’s esophagus throughout the last decade.

Keyword clusters

Figure 6 identifies six major keyword clusters, and the high-frequency keywords within these clusters closely match the ranking in Table 8. For example, “Barrett’s esophagus” (595 occurrences), “adenocarcinoma” (460 occurrences), “management” (372 occurrences), “diagnosis” (338 occurrences), and “radiofrequency ablation” (252 occurrences) appear both as central nodes in the visualized clusters and as the top terms in the frequency table. These overlaps confirm that the cluster themes—GERD (#0), radiofrequency ablation (#1), esophageal cancer (#2), esophageal adenocarcinoma (#3), and management strategies (#4)—are not merely algorithmic outputs but representative of the most dominant and widely discussed research topics in the field.

Figure 6 Keyword clustering visualization associated with Barrett’s esophagus over the preceding 10-year period.

Burst keyword analysis

The burst keyword analysis in Figure 7 visually reflects the temporal dynamics of research attention, and the terms with the strongest burst intensities correspond directly with the trends in Table 8. Early bursts [2016–2018] around “body mass index”, “risk factors”, “mortality”, and “intramucosal carcinoma” align with epidemiologic and early cancer detection themes, whereas later bursts highlight practice-changing concepts such as “guideline”, “eradication”, “endoscopic eradication therapy”, and “endoscopic submucosal dissection”.

Figure 7 Keywords exhibiting significant burst intensity related to Barrett’s esophagus from 2016 to 2025.

The continued burst activity for management-related terms corresponds with the dominance of such keywords in Table 8 (e.g., “management”, “diagnosis”, “risk”). Taken together, the burst-term trajectory delineates three sequential phases of research emphasis: an epidemiology-and-risk-factor phase [2016–2018], a dysplasia-and-progression phase [2018–2020], and a guideline-driven precision-intervention phase [2020–2025] characterized by EET, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), and AI-assisted surveillance. These tables validate the timeline’s demonstration of an evolving research trajectory that transitions from risk profiling to precision therapy and standardized care pathways.

Discussion

The present bibliometric investigation offers a thorough and systematic evaluation of the worldwide research trajectories regarding BE over the past decade, revealing a dynamic and increasingly interconnected scientific landscape. Through the evaluation of publication outputs, collaboration patterns, co-citation structures, thematic evolution, and burst keywords, the study delineates both the historical trajectory and emerging directions of BE research. Beyond describing this landscape, the present analysis seeks to interpret the underlying drivers of these patterns and to translate the observed scientometric signals into clinically actionable insights regarding surveillance, eradication therapy, and the integration of emerging technologies.

Global research productivity and collaboration patterns

The USA overwhelmingly dominates BE research, contributing more than half of all publications and serving as the primary hub of international collaboration. This concentration is not incidental: it reflects the disproportionately high incidence of EAC in Western populations, large National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded clinical cohorts, and the historical leadership of U.S. centers in defining endoscopic eradication standards—drivers that simultaneously shape research priorities and the geographic distribution of guideline authorship (9). As reflected in Table 1, the USA far outpaces other countries such as the UK and the Netherlands.

Despite the USA’s leadership, the active contributions from Europe—particularly the UK, the Netherlands, Germany, and Italy—highlight a distributed yet highly interlinked global network. By contrast, the relatively limited output from East Asia, despite a substantial regional burden of GERD and esophageal cancer, points to a persistent collaboration silo: research priorities in these regions remain heavily oriented toward squamous-cell carcinoma rather than BE, and limited international co-authorship constrains the cross-pollination of screening and surveillance strategies. Increasing participation from China and Japan further indicates a widening international interest, suggesting that BE is becoming an increasingly global research priority.

Intellectual structure and influential contributions

The co-citation analyses provide a deeper understanding of the scientific foundations guiding BE research. The journals most frequently co-cited (Table 5), particularly Gastroenterology, American Journal of Gastroenterology, and Gut, are among the highest-impact venues in the field, underscoring their central role in disseminating clinically impactful research.

At the author level, the prominence of investigators such as Shaheen, Spechler, Sharma, Fitzgerald, and Hvid-Jensen (Table 6) reflects their long-standing contributions to guideline creation, surveillance recommendations, and therapeutic strategies. These scholars function as intellectual anchors whose work has shaped how BE is conceptualized, diagnosed, and managed across diverse settings. Their landmark publications appear as nodes with high betweenness centrality in Figure 5, indicating that they function as intellectual bridges connecting epidemiologic, endoscopic, and guideline-oriented clusters—an interpretation made operationally explicit through the metric defined in “Interpretation of key bibliometric indicators” section.

Evolution of research focus: from pathogenesis to therapeutic innovation

The timeline and keyword cluster analyses highlight several important shifts in conceptual priorities. Early research attention, particularly from 2011 to 2015, centered on defining optimal treatment strategies—especially radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and the clinical implications of short-segment BE (10-12). These foundational studies set the stage for the widespread adoption of EET in routine practice.

Between 2016 and 2020, the thematic center of gravity shifted toward cancer progression, dysplasia detection, and risk prediction. This shift reflects growing recognition of the heterogeneity of BE and the need for more refined tools to stratify patients by cancer risk. Clusters #2 (esophageal cancer) and #3 (esophageal adenocarcinoma) in Figure 6 (13-18), along with emerging bursts for terms such as “increased risk”, “carcinoma”, and “epidemiology” (Figure 7), illustrate the growing complexity of BE-related carcinogenesis research.

More recently, from 2020 onward, research emphasis has pivoted toward clinical management, guideline updates, and advanced endoscopic technologies. The strong bursts for “guideline”, “eradication”, and “endoscopic eradication therapy”, together with late bursts for “endoscopic submucosal dissection” and “safety”, can be interpreted as a scientometric footprint of three concurrent forces: (I) the consolidation of ACG, BSG, and ASGE guidelines establishing EET as standard of care for dysplastic BE; (II) the maturation of cost-effectiveness evidence supporting EET over esophagectomy in early disease; and (III) the broader shift in global disease burden toward early-stage detection, which raises the marginal value of organ-sparing therapy. The emergence of AI in cluster #4 of Figure 5 signals a parallel trajectory toward AI-augmented dysplasia detection and surveillance optimization, with recent comprehensive reviews highlighting deep-learning systems that match or exceed expert endoscopists across image-based BE diagnostic tasks (5). In parallel, the capsule sponge has now been prospectively evaluated as a biomarker-based risk-stratification tool in UK real-world Barrett’s surveillance, supporting its incorporation into population-level case-finding and surveillance-de-escalation strategies (4). These trends collectively imply that future clinical investigations should prioritize comparative effectiveness of EET modalities, AI-enabled surveillance pathways, and the integration of non-endoscopic screening tools (e.g., capsule sponge) into risk-stratified care models.

Methodological considerations and implications for future research

Bibliometric methods enable a robust quantitative assessment of scientific activity, but the analyses remain constrained by several factors. First, reliance exclusively on the WoSCC may exclude relevant publications indexed only in other databases such as Scopus, PubMed, or regional repositories; this restriction may systematically underrepresent specialized endoscopic studies and BE research from non-Western regions. Second, the search cutoff of August 2025 may underestimate the most recent output because of indexing delays for late-2024 and 2025 publications; the apparent decline in annual output during this window should therefore be interpreted as partially artefactual rather than as a true loss of momentum. Third, citation-based metrics inherently privilege older studies, which may obscure disruptive emerging work. Fourth, differences in clinical practice patterns across countries can influence publication priorities and may not necessarily reflect global disease burden.

Nevertheless, the findings highlight several promising directions for future investigation. The rapid expansion of endoscopic technologies underscores the need for prospective comparative effectiveness research, long-term real-world outcome data, and cost-effectiveness analyses to inform surveillance guidelines. The rising interest in AI suggests opportunities to improve detection accuracy, reduce interobserver variability, and refine surveillance protocols, but also calls for rigorous external validation across diverse populations. Finally, integration of multi-omics biomarkers with endoscopic and clinical variables may enable individualized risk stratification, moving the field beyond histology-based surveillance toward precision BE management.

Conclusions

In summary, this bibliometric analysis reveals a rapidly evolving and increasingly multidisciplinary research field. The scientific community has transitioned from foundational exploration of BE pathogenesis and early therapeutic trials toward sophisticated strategies that emphasize individualized management, technological innovation, and precision surveillance. Clinically, these findings advocate for risk-stratified surveillance pathways, the deliberate integration of AI-assisted detection into endoscopic practice, harmonization of guideline-based eradication strategies, and equitable access to advanced endoscopic technologies across regions. Methodologically, current research is limited by heterogeneity in surveillance protocols, scarcity of real-world outcome data, and underrepresentation of non-Western cohorts; future studies should prioritize prospective registries, head-to-head comparisons of EET modalities, cost-effectiveness analyses, and the integration of multi-omics biomarkers. By mapping global productivity, collaboration, and thematic evolution, this study provides a comprehensive overview that may help clinicians, researchers, and policymakers better understand current gaps, anticipate upcoming trends, and prioritize future efforts in BE research.

Acknowledgments

None.

Footnote

Reporting Checklist: The authors have completed the BIBLIO reporting checklist. Available at https://jtd.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/jtd-2026-1-0279/rc

Peer Review File: Available at https://jtd.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/jtd-2026-1-0279/prf

Funding: None.

Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://jtd.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/jtd-2026-1-0279/coif). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical Statement: The authors are accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

References

1. Shields HM, Sawhney RA, Zwas F, et al. Scanning electron microscopy of the human esophagus: application to Barrett’s esophagus, a precancerous lesion. Microsc Res Tech 1995;31:248-56. [Crossref] [PubMed]
2. Saha B, Verma A, Dierkhising R, et al. Barrett’s Esophagus Risk Factors in Patients Without Gastroesophageal Reflux: A Large Population-Based Study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2024;22:2150-2152.e2. [Crossref] [PubMed]
3. Max Almond L, Barr H. Management controversies in Barrett’s oesophagus. J Gastroenterol 2014;49:195-205. [Crossref] [PubMed]
4. Tan WK, Ross-Innes CS, Somerset T, et al. Biomarker risk stratification with capsule sponge in the surveillance of Barrett’s oesophagus: prospective evaluation of UK real-world implementation. Lancet 2025;406:271-82. [Crossref] [PubMed]
5. Ebigbo A, Messmann H, Lee SH. Artificial Intelligence Applications in Image-Based Diagnosis of Early Esophageal and Gastric Neoplasms. Gastroenterology 2025;169:396-415.e2. [Crossref] [PubMed]
6. Morán-Mariños C, Pacheco-Mendoza J, Metcalf T, et al. Collaborative scientific production of epilepsy in Latin America from 1989 to 2018: A bibliometric analysis. Heliyon 2020;6:e05493. [Crossref] [PubMed]
7. Montazeri A, Mohammadi S, M, Hesari P, et al. Preliminary guideline for reporting bibliometric reviews of the biomedical literature (BIBLIO): a minimum requirements. Syst Rev 2023;12:239. [Crossref] [PubMed]
8. Chen C, Song M. Visualizing a field of research: A methodology of systematic scientometric reviews. PLoS One 2019;14:e0223994. [Crossref] [PubMed]
9. Lukanich JM. Section I: epidemiological review. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2003;15:158-66.
10. Fitzgerald RC, di Pietro M, Ragunath K, et al. British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on the diagnosis and management of Barrett’s oesophagus. Gut 2014;63:7-42. [Crossref] [PubMed]
11. Phoa KN, van Vilsteren FG, Weusten BL, et al. Radiofrequency ablation vs endoscopic surveillance for patients with Barrett esophagus and low-grade dysplasia: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2014;311:1209-17. [Crossref] [PubMed]
12. Phoa KN, Pouw RE, Bisschops R, et al. Multimodality endoscopic eradication for neoplastic Barrett oesophagus: results of an European multicentre study (EURO-II). Gut 2016;65:555-62. [Crossref] [PubMed]
13. Shaheen NJ, Falk GW, Iyer PG, et al. ACG Clinical Guideline: Diagnosis and Management of Barrett’s Esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol 2016;111:30-50; quiz 51. [Crossref] [PubMed]
14. ASGE Standards of Practice Committee. ASGE guideline on screening and surveillance of Barrett’s esophagus. Gastrointest Endosc 2019;90:335-359.e2. [Crossref] [PubMed]
15. Shaheen NJ, Falk GW, Iyer PG, et al. Diagnosis and Management of Barrett’s Esophagus: An Updated ACG Guideline. Am J Gastroenterol 2022;117:559-87. [Crossref] [PubMed]
16. Sharma P, Shaheen NJ, Katzka D, et al. AGA Clinical Practice Update on Endoscopic Treatment of Barrett’s Esophagus With Dysplasia and/or Early Cancer: Expert Review. Gastroenterology 2020;158:760-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
17. Spechler SJ, Souza RF. Barrett’s esophagus. N Engl J Med 2014;371:836-45. [Crossref] [PubMed]
18. Krishnamoorthi R, Singh S, Ragunathan K, et al. Factors Associated With Progression of Barrett’s Esophagus: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018;16:1046-1055.e8. [Crossref] [PubMed]