Observational studyBMJ open gastroenterology2023
Variation in the rate of detection of minute and small early gastric cancers at diagnostic endoscopy may reflect the performance of individual endoscopists.
Observational study in BMJ open gastroenterology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI-Assisted Detection May Help Identify Visible but Missed Gastric Cancers During Routine Upper Endoscopy.Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2026Article
- Endoscopic Diagnosis of Chronic Atrophic Gastritis and Early Gastric Cancer: From Basics to Advanced Imaging.Cancers · 2026Review
- Influence of sex differences among endoscopists in gastric cancer and precancerous condition detection rate during EGD in the artificial intelligence era: a retrospective study.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- The design and evaluation of the opportunistic endoscopic screening (OpENS) program for upper gastrointestinal tract cancers: a real-world study in China.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2025Article
- Diagnostic performance of white light endoscopy, narrow band imaging, and flexible spectral imaging color enhancement for early gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- Latest Advances in Endoscopic Detection of Oesophageal and Gastric Neoplasia.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- A study on the improvement in the ability of endoscopists to diagnose gastric neoplasms using an artificial intelligence system.Frontiers in 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe documented variation in gastric cancer (GC) detection among endoscopists has often been dismissed as a coincidental artefact of the low incidence of gastric neoplasms; it is not considered associated with differences in physicians' performance of the esophagogastroduodenoscopy procedure. This study is to confirm whether significant variations among endoscopists in early GC detection suggest the individual performance of the upper endoscopy.
designA retrospective observational study at a single centre in Japan assessed the results of 218 early GCs detected during 25 688 routine esophagogastroduodenoscopies by 12 endoscopists. The main outcome was the rate of early GC detection for each endoscopist under the same circumstances. Other measures included the major diameters and locations of the lesions,
resultsThe early GC detection rates exhibited wide variation among endoscopists (0.09%-2.87%) despite performing routine esophagogastroduodenoscopies in a population with a similar background. Endoscopists were assigned to a low-detection group (n=6; detection rate: 0.47% (range: 0.09%-0.55%)) and a high-detection group (n=5; detection rate: 0.83% (range: 0.63%-1.12%)), with the single highest detector analysed separately due to his distinct detection rate (2.87%). Endoscopists in the high-detection group had better detection rates for minute (major diameter ≤5 mm) and small (major diameter 6-10 mm) GCs than the low-detection group (0.19%/0.23% vs 0.085%/0.098%). These differences were significant (p<0.01), although there were no significant differences in detection of larger tumours (major diameter ≥11 mm; 0.40% vs 0.28%; p=0.13). The tumour location and
conclusionSignificant variation in the detection of hard-to-find, smaller GCs may reflect individual performance of the examination.
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.