Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26699332›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Massive Endoscopic Screening for Esophageal and Gastric Cancers in a High-Risk Area of China.

Xianzhi Zheng, Xuhua Mao, Kun Xu, Lingshuang Lü, Xianzhen Peng, Min Wang, Guisheng Xu, Zhaolai Hua, Jianping Wang, Hengchuan Xue and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. A Multicenter Pivotal Study on the Artificial Intelligence System for Neoplastic Lesions Detection in Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2025
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

12 authors.

Xianzhi ZhengDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, 211166, China.
Xuhua MaoDepartment of Clinical Laboratory, Yixing People's Hospital, Wuxi, 214200, China.
Kun XuDepartment of Social Medicine and Health Education, School of Public Health, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, 211166, China.
Lingshuang LüDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, 211166, China.
Xianzhen PengDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, 211166, China.
Min WangDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, 211166, China.
Guisheng XuDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, 211166, China.
Zhaolai HuaYangzhong Cancer Research Institute, Yangzhong People's Hospital, Yangzhong, 212200, China.
Jianping WangYangzhong Cancer Research Institute, Yangzhong People's Hospital, Yangzhong, 212200, China.
Hengchuan XueYangzhong Cancer Research Institute, Yangzhong People's Hospital, Yangzhong, 212200, China.
Jianming WangDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, 211166, China.
Cheng LuDepartment of Breast, Nanjing Maternity and Child Health Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, 210004, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study aims to describe the findings from a massive endoscopic screening program in a high-risk area of China and to evaluate the prognosis of patients diagnosed through endoscopic screening compared with those diagnosed at usual hospital visits because of illness.

methodsIn 2006, an early detection and treatment program was initiated in Yangzhong county, China. Local residents aged 40-69 years were eligible for free endoscopic screening. Endoscopic examination was performed with Lugol's iodine staining, followed by biopsies. Patients diagnosed with esophageal or gastric cancer were referred for treatment and followed to assess their long-term survival status.

resultsFrom 2006 through 2012, we screened 12453 participants, including 5334 (42.8%) men and 7119 (57.2%) women. The average age was 52.8 ± 8.0 years. We detected 166 patients with upper digestive tract cancers, including 106 cancers in the esophagus (detection rate: 0.85%) and 60 cancers in the stomach (detection rate: 0.48%). Of these patients, 98.11% with esophageal cancer and 100% with gastric cancer were defined as at the early stage. In the process of follow-up, 17 patients died from cancer-related causes, and the median survival time was greater than 85 months. The overall survival rates for 1, 3 and 5 years were 98.0%, 90.0% and 89.0%, respectively. A significant positive effect was observed for the long-term survival of patients diagnosed through massive endoscopic screening.

conclusionsIn a high-risk population, massive endoscopic screening can identify early stage carcinoma of esophageal and gastric cancers and improve patients' prognosis through early detection and treatment.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerAdultAgedChinaEndoscopyEsophageal NeoplasmsEsophagoscopyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrognosisRisk FactorsStomach NeoplasmsSurvival Rate

Identifiers

PMID26699332
PMCPMC4689398

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.