ReviewTherapeutic advances in gastroenterology2020
Decision model analyses of upper endoscopy for gastric cancer screening and preneoplasia surveillance: a systematic review.
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 15 papers, 3 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Asian Pacific Association of Gastroenterology task force recommendations on surveillance forGut · 2026Guideline
- ACG Clinical Guideline: Diagnosis and Management of Gastric Premalignant Conditions.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2025Guideline
- Utility Values of Health Status in Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review.Value in health regional issues · 2025Pooled it
- Biomarkers in Gastric Cancer: Blood Biomarkers, Liquid Biopsy, Artificial Intelligence, and Risk-Stratified Care.Cancers · 2026Review
- Gastric Cancer Screening in the United States: A Review of Current Evidence, Challenges, and Future Perspectives.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2025Review
- Demographic Comparison of the Burden of Endoscopically Screenable Cancers in the United States.Gastro hep advances · 2024Article
- Identification of Cancer/Testis Antigens Related to Gastric Cancer Prognosis Based on Co-Expression Network and Integrated Transcriptome Analyses.Advanced biomedical research · 2023Article
- Gastric Cancer Screening in Japan: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- FIS1 Overexpression Is Correlated with Tumor Metastasis in Gastric Adenocarcinoma.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2022Article
- Index diagnoses of gastric intestinal metaplasia in the United States: patient characteristics, endoscopic findings, and clinical practice patterns at a large tertiary care center.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2022Article
- Endoscopy Is Cost-Effective for Gastric Cancer Screening After Successful Helicobacter pylori Eradication.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2021Article
- Article
- Circular RNA circ_HN1 facilitates gastric cancer progression through modulation of the miR-302b-3p/ROCK2 axis.Molecular and cellular biochemistry · 2021Article
- Sharing With Patients the Uncertainties Regarding the Management of Dyspepsia.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Review
- The diagnostic performance of probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy in the detection of gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of gastroenterologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
aimsGastric cancer (GC) is the third leading cause of cancer death worldwide, but the burden of disease is not distributed evenly. GC screening routinely occurs in some high-incidence regions/countries and is generally cost-effective, which is attributed largely to the associated GC mortality reduction. In regions of low-intermediate incidence, less is known about the outcomes of GC screening and gastric precancer surveillance, including cost-effectiveness, since there are no comparative clinical studies. Decision analytic studies are informative in such instances where logistical limitations preclude "gold standard" study designs. We therefore aimed to conduct a systematic review of decision model analyses focused on endoscopic GC screening or precancer surveillance.
methodsWe identified decision model analyses, including cost effectiveness and cost utility studies, of GC screening or preneoplasia surveillance. At minimum, articles were evaluated for: study country; analytic design; population and health states; time horizon; model assumptions; outcomes; threshold value(s) for "cost-effective" determination; and sensitivity analyses. Quality appraisal was performed using a modified Drummond's analytic scoring system. Data sources were PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library.
resultsWe identified 17 studies (8 screening, 4 surveillance, and 5 screening and surveillance) that met full inclusion criteria. Endoscopic screening in countries of high GC incidence was cost-effective across all studies; targeted screening of high-risk populations within otherwise low-intermediate incidence countries was also generally cost-effective. Surveillance of gastric precancer, including atrophic gastritis or gastric intestinal metaplasia, was generally cost-effective. Most studies had high appraisal scores, with 4 (24%) studies achieving perfect scores on the Drummond scale.
conclusionDecision model analyses offer a unique mechanism with which to efficiently explore the cost benefit of various prevention and early detection strategies. Based on this comprehensive systematic review, upper endoscopy for GC screening and gastric precancer surveillance might be cost-effective depending on the population and protocol. Focused efforts are especially needed not only to define the optimal approach, but also to define the populations within otherwise low-intermediate regions/countries who might benefit most.
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.