ArticleJournal of clinical and translational research2022
The misclassification of gastric antral vascular ectasia.
Article in Journal of clinical and translational research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Initial treatment approaches for nodular gastric antral vascular ectasia: A comparison of endoscopic band ligation and thermal therapies.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2025Article
- Role of endoscopy in the diagnosis and treatment of gastric mucosal lesions in liver cirrhosis patients.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2025Review
- A case report of gastric antral vascular ectasia treated by endoscopic band ligation combined with lauromacrogol injection.Medicine · 2025Article
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
Background: Gastric antral vascular ectasia (GAVE) is characterized by angiodysplastic lesions and is a rare form of gastrointestinal bleeding. Given the multiple patterns, GAVE can be misclassified. Aim: We analyzed the misclassification of GAVE among patients undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). Methods: We performed a retrospective review of 941 EGDs between 2017 and 2019. Inclusion criteria included findings of GAVE on EGD±biopsy. Correct classification was based on visual EGD findings. Outcome variables included misclassification rate, endoscopist's background, and concordance between EGD and pathology. Cohen's Kappa test was used for concordance analysis. Results: A total of 110 patients had EGD findings of GAVE with a corresponding 184 EGDs. The misclassification rate among EGDs was 74/184 (40%). Furthermore, 81/110 patients were correctly classified with their first workup, whereas 29/110 patients needed repeat testing. In cases of misclassification, GAVE was mostly referred to as erythema (43%), with ulceration, gastritis, or polyps. Sixty-six (60%) patients had biopsies with a concordance of 76% between EGD and biopsy (κ=0.35). Conclusions: Our findings indicate GAVE was misclassified up to 40% on EGDs with hepatologists and gastroenterologists having similar misclassification rates. Proper identification is crucial given susceptibility to upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Relevance for Patients: This study emphasizes the importance of accurate classification of GAVE to ensure proper treatment of these lesions which can improve clinical outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35813901PMC9260348What 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.