ArticleFrontline gastroenterology2020
Factors associated with oesophagogastric cancers missed by gastroscopy: a case-control study.
Article in Frontline gastroenterology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04843397 (PROspective Multicentre Study to Identify Diagnostic Key PERfOrmance Indicators in Upper GI Endoscopy), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
PROspective Multicentre Study to Identify Diagnostic Key PERfOrmance Indicators in Upper GI Endoscopy (PROSPERO)
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development of a national root cause analysis system for post-endoscopy upper gastrointestinal cancer.Endoscopy international open · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in endoscopic diagnosis of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and precancerous lesions.Chinese medical journal · 2025Review
- Esophageal cancers missed at upper endoscopy in Central Norway 2004 to 2021 - A population-based study.BMC gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Post-Endoscopy Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Rate in a Tertiary Referral Centre: An Australian Data Linkage Analysis.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2023Article
- Review
- Automatic Recognition of Colon and Esophagogastric Cancer with Machine Learning and Hyperspectral Imaging.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThere is increasing demand for gastroscopy in the United Kingdom. In around 10% of patients, gastroscopy is presumed to have missed oesophagogastric (OG) cancer prior to diagnosis. We examine patient, endoscopist and service level factors that may affect rates of missed OG cancers.
methodsGastroscopies presumed to have missed OG cancers performed up to 3 years prior to diagnosis were identified over 6 years in Sheffield, UK. Factors related to the patient, endoscopist and endoscopy lists were examined in a case-control study. Procedures which missed cancer were compared with two procedure controls: the procedures which subsequently diagnosed cancer in the same patient, and second, endoscopist matched procedures diagnostic of small benign focal lesions.
resultsWe identified 48 (7.7%) cases of missed OG cancer. Endoscopy lists on which OG cancer diagnoses were missed contained a greater number of total procedures compared with lists on which diagnoses were subsequently made (OR 1.42 95% CI 1.13 to 1.78) and when compared with lists during which matched endoscopists diagnosed benign small focal lesions (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.52). The use of sedation, endoscopist profession and experience, or time of procedure were not associated with a missed cancer.
conclusion7.7% of patients diagnosed with OG cancer could have been diagnosed and treated earlier. Our study suggests that endoscopy lists with greater numbers of procedures may be associated with missed OG cancers. The use of sedation, endoscopist background or time of procedure did not increase the risk of missed cancer procedures.
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.