ReviewWorld journal of gastroenterology2016
Benefits and harms of endoscopic screening for gastric cancer.
Review in World journal of gastroenterology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 2 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
36 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Serum markers and gastric cancer: an umbrella review.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Pooled it
- Gastric cancer in patients with gastric atrophy and intestinal metaplasia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2019Pooled it
- Trial
- Initial results from a multi-center population-based cluster randomized trial of esophageal and gastric cancer screening in China.BMC gastroenterology · 2020Trial
- Letter to the Editor: "Five-Year Unified Risk Prediction Model for Gastric and Esophageal Cancer Based on Nationwide Health Check-Up Data in Japan: J-GESS Score".Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2026Article
- Machine learning-based gastric cancer risk prediction in an asymptomatic screening population: a retrospective cohort study.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2026Article
- Article
- The potential value of serum pepsinogen and gastrin-17 for the diagnosis of chronic atrophic gastritis at different stages of severity: a clinical diagnostic study.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Projection of future gastric cancer incidence and health-care service demand by geographic area in Kanagawa, Japan.Cancer science · 2025Article
- Machine learning classification and biochemical characteristics in the real-time diagnosis of gastric adenocarcinoma using Raman spectroscopy.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Burden of gastric cancer in Ecuador (2010-2021): a gender- and age-specific analysis using disability-adjusted life years (DALYs).Frontiers in epidemiology · 2025Article
- Differences in complications between colonoscopy and esophagogastroduodenoscopy in Japan using large-scale health insurance claims data.Endoscopy international open · 2025Article
- Article
- Ultrasound Features ofAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Colonoscopy is not mammography: Challenges of applying the Duty of Candor.Endoscopy international open · 2024Article
- Construction and Validation of a Gastric Cancer Diagnostic Model based on Blood Groups and Tumor Markers.Journal of Cancer · 2024Article
- Screening of novel serum biomarkers for gastric cancer in coastal populations using a protein microarray.Cancer science · 2023Article
- Updated epidemiology of gastrointestinal cancers in East Asia.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2023Review
- Long-term anxiety and depression signatures of participants that received esophageal cancer screening: A multicenter population-based cohort study.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- GC-MS-based metabolomics of volatile organic compounds in exhaled breath: applications in health and disease. A review.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Gastric cancer has remained a serious burden worldwide, particularly in East Asian countries. However, nationwide prevention and screening programs for gastric cancer have not yet been established in most countries except in South Korea and Japan. Although evidence regarding the effectiveness of endoscopic screening for gastric cancer has been increasingly accumulated, such evidence remains weak because it is based on results from studies other than randomized controlled trials. Specifically, evidence was mostly based on the results of cohort and case-control studies mainly conducted in South Korea and Japan. However, the consistent positive results from these studies suggest promising evidence of mortality reduction from gastric cancer by endoscopic screening. The major harms of endoscopic screening include infection, adverse effects, false-positive results, and overdiagnosis. Despite the possible harms of endoscopic screening, information regarding these harms remains insufficient. To provide appropriate cancer screening, a balance of benefits and harms should always be considered when cancer screening is introduced as a public policy. Quality assurance is very important for the implementation of cancer screening to provide high-quality and safe screening and minimize harms. Endoscopic screening for gastric cancer has shown promising results, and thus deserves further evaluation to reliably establish its effectiveness and optimal use.
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.