ArticleJournal of neurogastroenterology and motility2019
What Is Appropriate Upper Endoscopic Interval Among Dyspeptic Patients With Previously Normal Endoscopy? A Multicenter Study With Bayesian Change Point Analysis.
Article in Journal of neurogastroenterology and motility, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A comparative systematic review and meta-analysis on the diagnostic accuracy of non-invasive tests forFrontiers in medicine · 2023Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsAppropriate interval for performing follow-up endoscopy among dyspeptic patients without abnormal findings on previous endoscopy is unclear. We analyzed the multicenter-collected data from the Korean Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility.
methodsWe collected clinical data of the patients who visited the gastroenterology department and underwent 2 or more sessions of upper endoscopy during 2012-2017 at 6 university hospitals in Korea. Patients with endoscopic interval between 90 days and 760 days were included. For those with multiple endoscopic sessions, only the first 2 were analyzed. Positive outcome was defined as adenoma or cancer in the upper gastrointestinal tract. To identify the point of change and estimate the properties of the stochastic process before and after the change, we used Bayesian regression with Metropolis-Hastings algorithm.
resultsThere were 1595 patients. Mean age was 58.8 years (standard deviation, 12.8). Median interval of endoscopy was 437 days (standard deviation, 153). On follow-up endoscopy, there were 12 patients (0.75%) who had neoplasia (4 with gastric cancer and 8 with gastric adnoma). As with the prior hypothesis, we presumed the change point (CP) of increase in frequency of organic lesion as 360 days. After random-walk Metropolis-Hastings sampling with Markov-Chain Monte Carlo iterations of 5000, the CP was 560 days (95% credible interval, 139-724). Estimated average of frequency of dysplastic lesions increased by a factor of 4.4 after the estimated CP.
conclusionTo rule out dysplastic lesions among dyspeptic patients who had previously normal endoscopy, a 2-year interval could be offered as follow-up interval for repeat upper endoscopy.
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.