Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23235651›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2012

Screening for oesophageal cancer.

Shujuan Yang, Siying Wu, Yuchuan Huang, Ying Shao, Xiao Y Chen, Liu Xian, Jianwei Zheng, Yuanyuan Wen, Xinyue Chen, Huangyuan Li and 1 more

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Interventions for dysphagia in oesophageal cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Precision screening for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in China.Chinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu · 2020
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Shujuan YangWest China School of Public Health, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China. rekinyyang@yahoo.com.cn.
Siying Wu
Yuchuan Huang
Ying Shao
Xiao Y Chen
Liu Xian
Jianwei Zheng
Yuanyuan Wen
Xinyue Chen
Huangyuan Li
Chunxia Yang
Sichuan University · CNFujian Medical University · CNChinese PLA General Hospital · CNHangzhou Center for Disease Control and Prevention · CNYunnan Center for Disease Control And Prevention · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOesophageal cancer is a global heath problem. The prognosis for advanced oesophageal cancer is generally unfavourable, but early-stage asymptomatic oesophageal cancer is basically curable and could achieve better survival rates. The two most commonly used tests are cytologic examination and endoscopy with mucosal iodine staining. The efficacy of the screening tests is controversial, and the true benefit and efficacy of screening remains uncertain because of the potential lead-time and length-time biases. This review was conducted to examine the evidence for the efficacy of screening for oesophageal cancer (squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma).

objectivesTo determine the efficacy of early screening, using endoscopy with iodine staining or cytologic examination, in reducing mortality from oesophageal cancer in asymptomatic individuals from high-risk and general populations. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2012, Issue 8), The Cochrane Library (2012, Issue 8), MEDLINE (1950 to August 2012), EMBASE (1980 to August 2012), Allied and Complementary Medicine (AMED) (1985 to August 2012), Chinese Biomedical Database (CBM) (January 1975 to August 2012), VIP Database (January 1989 to August 2012), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) (January 1979 to August 2012), and the Internet. We also searched reference lists, conference proceedings, and databases of ongoing trials. There was no restriction on language or publication status in the search for trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included only randomised controlled trials (RCT) of screening versus no screening for oesophageal cancer. Randomisation of groups or clusters of individuals was acceptable. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently scanned the titles and abstracts from the initial search for potential trials for inclusion. We did not find any trials that met the inclusion criteria. MAIN

resultsThe electronic search identified 3482 studies. Two authors independently reviewed the references. The reports of 18 studies were retrieved for further investigation. None met the eligibility criteria for a RCT investigation of the effects of screening versus no screening for oesophageal cancer. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThere were no RCTs that determined the efficacy of screening for oesophageal cancer. Non-RCTs showed a high incidence and the reported better survival after screening could be caused by selection bias, lead-time and length-time biases. RCTs are needed to determine the efficacy of screening for oesophageal cancer.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaCarcinoma, Squamous CellEsophageal NeoplasmsEsophagoscopyHumansIodineStaining and LabelingIodine

Identifiers

PMID23235651
PMCPMC11091427
OpenAlexW1867670207

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.