SynthesisPloS one2014
Prediction of gastric cancer development by serum pepsinogen test and Helicobacter pylori seropositivity in Eastern Asians: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
54 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 96 citations in OpenAlex.
- Guidelines for the management of Helicobacter pylori infection in Japan: 2024 revised edition.Journal of gastroenterology · 2026Guideline
- Serum markers and gastric cancer: an umbrella review.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Pooled it
- Clinical practice guidelines for molecular tumor marker, 2nd edition review part 2.International journal of clinical oncology · 2024Guideline
- Pooled it
- Guideline
- Simulation Models in Gastric Cancer Screening: A Systematic ReviewAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2018Pooled it
- Meta-analysis of prediction model performance across multiple studies: Which scale helps ensure between-study normality for the C-statistic and calibration measures?Statistical methods in medical research · 2018Pooled it
- Randomized controlled trial comparing the costs of gastric cancer screening systems between serological risk-based upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and the existing barium photofluorography: gastric cancer screening labeled by serum examination in place of aged gastric cancer organized screening systems (GALAPAGOS study).Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2024Trial
- Review
- The Role of Serum Pepsinogen Tests for Detecting Gastric Cancer Between Sexes and Among Age Groups.Gut and liver · 2026Review
- Role of Serum Pepsinogen Tests in Detection of Gastric Atrophy, Intestinal Metaplasia, Gastric Adenoma, and Gastric Cancer in South Korea.Gut and liver · 2025Article
- From discovery to clinical implementation of a pancreatic blood biomarker, apolipoprotein A2 isoform.Cancer biomarkers : section A of Disease markers · 2025Review
- Screening for and surveillance of premalignant conditions of the stomach.Best practice & research. Clinical gastroenterology · 2025Review
- A Novel Index Including Age, Sex, hTERT, and Methylated RUNX3 Is Useful for Diagnosing Early Gastric Cancer.Oncology · 2025Article
- Population-based X-ray gastric cancer screening in Hiroshima prefecture, Japan.World journal of clinical oncology · 2024Article
- A DSC Test for the Early Detection of Neoplastic Gastric Lesions in a Medium-Risk Gastric Cancer Area.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Early Gastric Cancer: Update on Prevention, Diagnosis and Treatment.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Review
- Esophagogastroduodenoscopy Outcomes Variated by the Time of the Day: A Single-Center Experience.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Forthcoming Step in Gastric Cancer Prevention: How Can Risk Stratification Be Combined with Endoscopic Screening for Gastric Cancer?Gut and liver · 2022Review
- Aberrant DNA Methylation Maker for Predicting Metachronous Recurrence After Endoscopic Resection of Gastric Neoplasms.Cancer research and treatment · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo identify high-risk groups for gastric cancer in presumptively healthy populations, several studies have investigated the predictive ability of the pepsinogen test, H. Pylori antibodies, and a risk-prediction model based on these two tests. To investigate whether these tests accurately predict gastric cancer development, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis.
methodsPubMed and other electronic databases were searched for cohort studies published in English or Japanese from January 1985 through December 2013. Six reviewers identified eligible studies, and at least two investigators extracted data on population and study-design characteristics, quality items, and outcomes of interest. Meta-analyses were performed on non-overlapping studies.
resultsNine prospective cohorts from Eastern Asia reported in 12 publications, including 33,741 asymptomatic middle-aged participants of gastric cancer screening, were eligible. For discriminating between asymptomatic adults at high and low risk of gastric cancer, the pepsinogen test (summary hazard ratio [HR], 3.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.7-4.7; I2 = 0%) and H. pylori antibodies (summary HR, 3.2; 95% CI, 2.0-5.2; I2 = 0%) were statistically significant predictors as standalone tests. Although the risk-prediction model was in general moderately accurate in separating asymptomatic adults into four risk groups (summary c-statistic, 0.71; 95% CI: 0.68-0.73; I2 = 7%), calibration seemed to be poor. The study validity was generally limited.
conclusionsThe serum pepsinogen test, H. pylori antibodies, and the four-risk-group model for predicting gastric cancer development seem to have the potential to stratify middle-aged presumptively healthy adults. Future research needs to focus on comparative studies to evaluate the impact of screening programs adopting these tests. Also, validation, preferably with model updating, is necessary to see whether the current model performance is transferable to different populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.