ReviewDEN open2023
Quality indicators in the endoscopic detection of gastric cancer.
Review in DEN open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Updated evaluation of additional surgery versus non-gastrectomy treatment for early gastric cancer after noncurative endoscopic resection: a meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Pooled it
- A Strain Decoupling Packaging Strategy for High-Fidelity Ultrathin Silicon Shape Sensors for Soft Medical Robotics.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- Endoscopists and endoscopic assistants' qualifications, but not their biopsy rates, improve gastric precancerous lesions detection rate.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2025Article
- Relationship between observation time and detection rate of focal lesions in Esophagogastroduodenoscopy: a single-center, retrospective study.BMC gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Deep learning-based anatomical position recognition for gastroscopic examination.Technology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Gastroscopy is the reference standard for the diagnosis of gastric cancer, but it is operator-dependent and associated with missed gastric cancer. The proliferation of gastroscopic examinations, increasingly for the screening and detection of subtle premalignant lesions, has motivated scrutiny of quality in gastroscopy. The concept of a high-quality endoscopic examination for the detection of superficial gastric neoplasia has been defined by expert guidelines to improve mucosal visualization, engender a systematic examination process and detect superficial neoplasia. This review discusses the evidence supporting the components of a high-quality diagnostic gastroscopic examination in relation to the detection of gastric cancer, and their potential role as procedural quality indicators to drive a structured improvement in clinically meaningful outcomes.
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.