SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2022
Association of Serum Pepsinogens With Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Five-Year Unified Risk Prediction Model for Gastric and Esophageal Cancer Based on Nationwide Health Check-Up Data in Japan: J-GESS Score.Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2026Article
- Integrated liquid biopsy model for predicting metastasis and guiding PD-1 therapy in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Serum pepsinogens are serological biomarkers of gastric atrophy, and the latter is a risk factor for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). However, the association of serum pepsinogens with ESCC risk remains unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the relationship between serum pepsinogen I (PGI) and pepsinogen I: pepsinogen II ratio (PGR) and ESCC risk. Methods: PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched for articles on the effect of serum PGI and PGR on ESCC risk, published up to the end of February 2022. Meta-analysis with a random-effect model was used to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Five case-control studies and three prospective studies were included. In comparison with the high categories, the low categories of serum PGI (OR: 1.92, 95% CI: 1.45-2.56) and PGR (OR: 1.70, 95% CI: 1.01-2.85) were associated with an increased risk of ESCC, although a substantial heterogeneity was observed in serum PGR ( Conclusions: Based on the available studies, although limited in number, this systematic review along with meta-analysis suggests that low serum PGI and low PGR may be related to an increased risk of ESCC. This present study provides evidence for using serum pepsinogen biomarkers in predicting ESCC. More delicate well-designed cohort studies with high study quality are needed, and dose-response analysis should be performed.
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.