ReviewTherapeutic advances in gastroenterology2020
Quality indicators in diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.
Review in Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 57 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quality Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand: A Joint Position Statement.Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2025Guideline
- Administration of mucolytic solution before upper endoscopy - double-blind, monocentric, randomized study.Biomedical papers of the Medical Faculty of the University Palacky, Olomouc, Czechoslovakia · 2023Trial
- Comparison of Lidocaine Spray and Lidocaine Ice Popsicle in Patients Undergoing Unsedated Esophagogastroduodenoscopy: A Single Center Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial.Clinical and experimental gastroenterology · 2021Trial
- Application of Artificial Intelligence in the Endoscopic Diagnosis of Gastric Cancer and Precancerous Lesions.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Endoscopic papillectomy for ampullary tumors: Multicenter retrospective study.Endoscopy international open · 2026Article
- Improving the Accuracy of Endoscopic Measurements of the Size of Gastrointestinal Lesions by a Guidewire Scale.Gastroenterology research and practice · 2026Article
- Retrosternal Burning and Its Endoscopic Associations: Findings from 5,561 Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopies.Iranian journal of medical sciences · 2026Article
- The impact of photographic image quantity on early upper gastrointestinal cancer detection during esophagogastroduodenoscopy.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Research and experiments of a new premedication for improving mucosal visibility during esophagogastroduodenoscopy.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Expert-AI Collaborative Training for Novice Endoscopists: A Path to Enhanced Efficiency.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
- Prospective Evaluation of Real-Time Artificial Intelligence for the Hill Classification of the Gastroesophageal Junction.United European gastroenterology journal · 2025Article
- Real-Time Gastric Juice Analysis to Rule Out the Presence of Autoimmune Gastritis: A Case-Control Study.GE Portuguese journal of gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Deep Learning for Image Analysis in the Diagnosis and Management of Esophageal Cancer.Cancers · 2024Review
- Applications of artificial intelligence in gastroscopy: a narrative review.The Journal of international medical research · 2024Review
- Survival trends in gastric cancer in Brazil: real-life data from a large cancer center.Ecancermedicalscience · 2024Article
- Article
- Orientation in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy-the only way is up.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2023Article
- Article
- Lessons learned: Preventable misses and near-misses of endoscopic procedures.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy contributes a major clinical service with consistently growing demand around the world. Its utility corresponds to varying epidemiological issues throughout the globe, with cancer screening and surveillance being of the utmost priority. Despite high accuracy in neoplasia detection, UGI endoscopy remains a highly operator-dependent procedure, characterized by a substantial rate of missed pathology. Despite an overall lack of high-quality performance measures, there is an increased level of awareness about the need for quality control of this procedure, which is reflected in several guidelines and position statements published in recent years. It is widely recognized that quality assessment should go beyond mere technical aspects of the examination, and include both pre- and post-procedural factors. By this means, quality control encompasses the entire patient experience with the health care provider, from appropriate indication and physical assessment, through high-quality endoscopy service, to appropriate follow up and patient satisfaction. This article aims to review the available and emerging quality metrics for UGI endoscopy, taken mostly from Western endoscopy societies, with references to Asian recommendations where appropriate. The paper is limited solely to diagnostic UGI endoscopy and does not include performance measures for therapeutic 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.