ArticleMedicine2016
A Model for Predicting the Future Risk of Incident Erosive Esophagitis in an Asymptomatic Population Undergoing Regular Check-ups.
Article in Medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Gastroesophageal disease risk and inhalational exposure a systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2025Pooled it
- Presentation and Epidemiology of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease.Gastroenterology · 2018Review
- Relationship between obesity and development of erosive reflux disease: A mediation analysis of the role of cardiometabolic risk factors.Scientific reports · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Erosive esophagitis is a major risk factor for Barrett esophagus and esophageal adenocarcinoma. Information regarding the putative risk factors for developing erosive esophagitis is considerably heterogeneous; thus, a risk model is required to clinically predict the incidence of erosive esophagitis. This study was to derive and validate a predictive model for the incidence of developing erosive esophagitis after negative index endoscopy in a population subjected to routine health check-ups. This retrospective cohort study of health check-ups included 11,535 patients who underwent repeated screening endoscopy after >3 years from a negative index endoscopy. We used logistic regression analysis to predict the incidence of erosive esophagitis, and a Simple Prediction of Erosive Esophagitis Development score for risk assessment was developed and internally validated using the split-sample approach. The development and validation cohorts included 5765 patients (675 with erosive esophagitis [11.7%]) and 5770 patients (670 with erosive esophagitis [11.6%]), respectively. The final model included sex, smoking behavior, body mass index, hypertension, and the triglyceride level as variables. This model predicted 667 cases of erosive esophagitis, yielding an expected-to-observed ratio of 1.00 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92-1.07). A simplified 5-item risk scoring system based on coefficients was developed, with a risk of erosive esophagitis of 6.2% (95% CI, 5.2-7.1) for the low-risk group (score ≤2), 15.1% (95% CI, 13.5-16.6) for the intermediate-risk group (score ≤3, 4), and 18.2% (95% CI, 15.2-21.3) for the high-risk group (score ≥5). The discriminative performance of the risk-prediction score was consistent in the derivation cohort and validation cohort (c-statistics 0.68 and 0.64, respectively); the calibration was good (Brier score 0.099 and 0.1, respectively). In conclusion, a simple risk-scoring model using putative risk factors can predict the future incidence of developing erosive esophagitis in asymptomatic 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.