Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32728390›Full record

ReviewTherapeutic advances in gastroenterology2020

Decision model analyses of upper endoscopy for gastric cancer screening and preneoplasia surveillance: a systematic review.

Andrew Canakis, Ethan Pani, Monica Saumoy, Shailja C Shah

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Gastric Cancer Screening in Japan: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Andrew CanakisDepartment of Medicine, Boston University Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Ethan PaniDepartment of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Monica SaumoyDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Shailja C ShahDivision of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 2215 Garland Avenue, Medical Research Building IV, Room 1030-C (mail), Nashville, TN 37232-0252, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2049-9959
University of Pennsylvania · USBoston University · USValley Health System · US

Funding

Translational Analysis CoreP30DK058404 · NIDDK · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI RICHARD M. PEEK · 2002 to 2026
$29.9M
H.Pylori Relationship to Digestive Diseases and CancerR01CA077955 · NCI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI RICHARD M. PEEK · 2003 to 2026
$9.7M
Helicobacter Pylori and Gastrointestinal BiologyR01DK058587 · NIDDK · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI PEEK, RICHARD M. · 2001 to 2024
$7.8M
Learning Health System Scholar Program at VanderbiltK12HS026395 · AHRQ · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI ROTHMAN, RUSSELL L., ROUMIE, CHRISTIANNE L. · 2018 to 2022
$2.7M
Optimization of Helicobacter pylori-related Disease Outcomes in VeteransIK2CX002027 · VA · VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION · PI SHAILJA C SHAH · 2020 to 2026
–
AHRQ HHS K12 HS026395CSRD VA IK2 CX002027NCI NIH HHS R01 CA077955NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK058404NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK058587
6 · The paper itself

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

cost effective analysiscost utility analysisdecision model analysesgastric cancerscreeningsurveillancesystematic review

Identifiers

PMID32728390
PMCPMC7366398
OpenAlexW3042749055

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.