Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25312052›Full record

ArticleGastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association2015

Follow-up endoscopy for benign-appearing gastric ulcers has no additive value in detecting malignancy: It is time to individualise surveillance endoscopy.

Eric A R Gielisse, Johan P Kuyvenhoven

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 31% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Quality indicators for upper GI endoscopy.Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2025
    Guideline
  2. Medical versus surgical treatment for refractory or recurrent peptic ulcer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Quality Indicators for Upper GI Endoscopy.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. [Approach for the Management of Indefinite-for-neoplasia Lesions Detected on Gastric Mucosal Biopsy].The Korean journal of helicobacter and upper gastrointestinal research · 2023
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Eric A R GielisseDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, VU University Medical Center, P.O. Box 7057, 1007 MB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. ericgielisse@hotmail.com.
Johan P KuyvenhovenDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Kennemer Gasthuis, Haarlem, The Netherlands.
Amsterdam UMC Location VUmc · NLSpaarne Gasthuis · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic follow-up for gastric ulcers.

methodsAll cases of gastric ulcers diagnosed at our teaching hospital between September 2005 and November 2011 were reviewed. The cases were selected by using ENDOBASE, an endoscopy documentation system. The characteristics of the ulcers and their histology were analysed.

resultsDuring the study period 321 cases with a gastric ulcer were diagnosed, including 214 benign ulcers (67 %) and 107 malignant ulcers (33 %). The mean age of the population was 71 years. In 200 patients (62 %) the ulcers were classified as benign appearing at the first endoscopy. However, in five of these patients, the ulcers eventually were malignant. In all of these five patients the index gastroscopy revealed a non-benign histology. Therefore, the sensitivity of a benign appearance of the ulcer in combination with histology at the first endoscopy is 100 % to rule out malignancy. In 121 patients (38 %) the ulcers were explicitly labelled as potentially malignant in the report of the first endoscopy. Of these potentially malignant-appearing ulcers, 102 (84 %) were indeed malignant as confirmed by histology. The other 19 ulcers (16 %) were benign at follow-up. The sensitivity of the three potential malignant characteristics at endoscopy was: dirty base 79 %, elevated border 94 % and irregular border 91 %. The specificity was 93, 82 and 89 %, respectively. The median diameter of the ulcers was significantly higher in the malignant group compared to the benign ulcer group (p < 0.0001). The accuracy of endoscopic malignancy diagnosis was as follows: sensitivity of 0.98 and specificity 0.84, positive predictive value 0.84 and negative predictive value 0.98. In total, 546 gastroscopies were performed in these 321 patients, of which 225 were follow-up endoscopies. By not monitoring ulcers considered benign in both appearance and histology, 173 gastroscopies would not have been performed, resulting in a decline of 77 % of the follow-up endoscopies performed.

conclusionEndoscopic follow-up of gastric ulcers considered benign by appearance and with benign histology showed no additive value in detecting unsuspected malignancy in this study. This strategy could reduce health costs and save distress to patients.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGastroscopyHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrecancerous ConditionsStomach NeoplasmsStomach UlcerYoung AdultFollow-up endoscopyGastric cancerGastric ulcerGastroscopy

Identifiers

PMID25312052
OpenAlexW1264901497

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.