Skip to content

Comparison of transnasal oesophagoscopy versus standard care for patients presenting with throat symptoms

Randomised controlled trial of transnasal oesophagoscopy versus standard care for patients presenting with throat symptoms

Status
Active, not recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
ISRCTN
Registry ID
ISRCTN68055393
Enrollment
50
Registered
2010-08-23
Start date
2009-11-01
Completion date
Unknown
Last updated
2016-10-17

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Throat symptoms Ear, Nose and Throat Throat symptoms

Interventions

Control arm: Standard care Intervention arm: Otolaryngologist is able to us a trans-nasal oesophagoscope to evaluate patient in addition to all other investigations routinely at his or her disposal in

Sponsors

Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust (UK)
Lead Sponsor

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
All

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: 1. Patients referred to secondary care Ear, Nose and Throat (ENT) services at recruiting centres with throat symptoms 2. Aged 18 years or older 3. Specific symptoms 3.1. Globus pharyngeus 3.2. Dysphagia 3.3. Odynophagia 3.4. Pain in throat 3.5. Foreign body sensation 3.6. Blood stained sputum

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: 1. Patients unable to provide informed consent 2. Patients with large neck mass, raising a strong suspicion that the patient is suffering from a head and neck cancer

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
Process time, measured from the date of first presentation to the ENT clinic. The process will be said to have ended when the patient has been informed face-to-face of their definitive diagnosis. At this point most patients will be referred back to their general practitioner, or will enter a new pathway, such as treatment for head and neck cancer.

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
1. Minor adverse events 2. Major adverse events 3. Cost to: 3.1. Health care service 3.2. The patient 3.3. Society, calculated using the human capital approach 4. Quality of life 5. Cost-effectiveness

Countries

United Kingdom

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ISRCTN (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026