Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29511549›Full record

ArticleUnited European gastroenterology journal2018

Endoscopic screening for gastric cancer: A cost-utility analysis for countries with an intermediate gastric cancer risk.

Miguel Areia, Manon Cw Spaander, Ernst J Kuipers, Mário Dinis-Ribeiro

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in United European gastroenterology journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 51 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing 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.

NCT06316882 completednot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

ROGCAS - Retrospective Observational Gastric Cancer Study

TypeobservationalSponsorUnidade Local De Saúde Do Norte AlentejanoRan2023 to 2025Enrolled349ConditionsGastric Cancer, Gastric (Stomach) Cancer, Atrophic Gastritis, Intestinal Metaplasia of Gastric MucosaArmsScreening endoscopy
NCT07522320 active not recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Real-world Incremental Costs of Opportunistic Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Added to Colorectal Cancer Screening and the Economic Burden of Gastric Cancer Management: a Retrospective Cohort Study - Study Protocol

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorUnidade Local De Saúde Do Norte AlentejanoRan2026 to 2026Enrolled250ConditionsGastric Cancer (GC), Gastric Adenocarcinoma
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Guideline
  5. Development and Evaluation of an Ergonomically Optimized Scope-Holder for Flexible Endoscopy (With Video).Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2026
    Article
  6. The Cost-Effectiveness of Gastric Cancer Screening and Surveillance Among Average-Risk and Risk-Stratified Populations.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2026
    Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Screening for and surveillance of premalignant conditions of the stomach.Best practice & research. Clinical gastroenterology · 2025
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

4 authors.

Miguel AreiaCenter for Research in Health Technologies and Information Systems (CINTESIS), Faculty of Medicine of the University of Porto (FMUP), Porto, Portugal.
Manon Cw SpaanderDepartment of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Zuid-holland, The Netherlands.
Ernst J KuipersDepartment of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Zuid-holland, The Netherlands.
Mário Dinis-RibeiroCenter for Research in Health Technologies and Information Systems (CINTESIS), Faculty of Medicine of the University of Porto (FMUP), Porto, Portugal.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEndoscopic screening for gastric cancer is debatable in countries with an intermediate risk.

objectiveThe objective of this article is to determine the cost-utility of screening strategies for gastric cancer in a European country.

methodsWe conducted a cost-utility analysis using a Markov model comparing three screening strategies versus no screening: stand-alone upper endoscopy, endoscopy combined with a colorectal cancer screening colonoscopy after a positive faecal occult blood test or pepsinogens serologic screening. Clinical data were collected from systematic reviews, costs from published national data and utilities as quality-adjusted life years (QALY). The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. The threshold was set at €37,000 (2016 prices).

resultsUpper endoscopy combined with screening colonoscopy (every 10 or 5 years) had an ICER of 15,407/QALY and €30,908/QALY respectively, stand-alone endoscopic screening (every five years) an ICER of €70,693/QALY and pepsinogens screening an ICER of €143,344/QALY. Sensitivity analyses revealed that only endoscopic costs <€75, a provision of only three endoscopies per patient or a gastric cancer risk >25/100,000 would make stand-alone endoscopic screening cost-effective.

conclusionEndoscopic gastric cancer screening in Europe can be cost-effective if combined with a screening colonoscopy in countries with a gastric cancer risk ≥10 per 100,000.

Indexed as

costs and cost analysisearly detection of cancergastrointestinal endoscopyMarkov chainsStomach neoplasm

Identifiers

PMID29511549
PMCPMC5833230

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.