ArticleTherapeutic advances in gastroenterology2020
Systematic review with meta-analysis: age-related malignancy detection rates at upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.
Article 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 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Setting a Standard for Helicobacter pylori Management in Pakistan.The Korean journal of helicobacter and upper gastrointestinal research · 2026Article
- Evaluating the safety and diagnostic performance of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy in the geriatric population.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2026Article
- Age- and Risk-Based Stratification in Dyspepsia: Redefining Endoscopic Thresholds for Clinically Significant and Malignant Findings.Clinics and practice · 2025Article
- Assessing age-related risks of gastrointestinal pathologies: a comparative study of gastroscopy outcomes across decades.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Age Cutoff and Yield of Prompt Esophagogastroduodenoscopy to Detect Malignancy in Vietnamese with Upper Gastrointestinal Symptoms: An Endoscopic Database Review of 472,744 Patients from 2014 to 2019.Canadian journal of gastroenterology & hepatology · 2021Review
- Epidemiology of premalignant and malignant upper gastrointestinal lesions among patients presenting from a rural community in Karachi, Pakistan.Pakistan journal of medical sciencesArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAge is an important and objective risk factor for upper gastrointestinal (GI) malignancy. The accuracy of various age limits to detect upper GI malignancy is unclear. Determination of this accuracy may aid in the decision to refer symptomatic patients for upper GI endoscopy. The aim of this analysis was to synthesize data on upper GI malignancy detection rates for various age limits worldwide through meta-analysis.
methodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science in November 2018. Selection criteria included studies addressing malignant findings at upper GI endoscopy in a symptomatic population reporting age at time of diagnosis. Meta-analyses were conducted to derive continent-specific cancer detection rates.
resultsA total of 33 studies including 346,641 patients across 21 countries fulfilled the inclusion criteria. To detect >80% of malignant cases all symptomatic patients over 40 years of age should be investigated in Africa, over 50 years of age in South America and Asia, and over 55 years of age in North America and Europe.
conclusionThis systematic review and meta-analysis provides data on intercontinental variation in age at time of upper GI malignancy diagnosis in symptomatic patients referred for upper GI endoscopy. Guideline recommendations for age-based selection should be tailored to local age-related detection rates.
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.