Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37424675›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet regional health. Western Pacific2023

Radiographic and endoscopic screening to reduce gastric cancer mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Masaya Hibino, Chisato Hamashima, Mitsunaga Iwata, Teruhiko Terasawa

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Incidental detection of cancers during population-based endoscopic gastric cancer screening in Japan.Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Masaya HibinoDepartment of Emergency Medicine and General Internal Medicine, Fujita Health University School of Medicine, Toyoake, Japan.
Chisato HamashimaHealth Policy Section, Department of Nursing, Faculty of Medical Technology, Teikyo University, Tokyo, Japan.
Mitsunaga IwataDepartment of Emergency Medicine and General Internal Medicine, Fujita Health University School of Medicine, Toyoake, Japan.
Teruhiko TerasawaDepartment of Emergency Medicine and General Internal Medicine, Fujita Health University School of Medicine, Toyoake, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Previous systematic reviews naïvely combined biased effects of screening radiography or endoscopy observed in studies with various designs. We aimed to synthesize currently available comparative data on gastric cancer mortality in healthy, asymptomatic adults by explicitly classifying the screening effects through study designs and types of intervention effects. Methods: We searched multiple databases through October 31, 2022 for this systematic review and meta-analysis. Studies of any design that compared gastric cancer mortality among radiographic or endoscopic screening and no screening in a community-dwelling adult population were included. The method included a duplicate assessment of eligibility, double extraction of summary data, and validity assessment using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions tool. Bayesian three-level hierarchical random-effects meta-analysis synthesized data corrected for self-selection bias on the relative risk (RR) for per-protocol (PP) and intention-to-screen (ITS) effects. The study registration number at PROSPERO is CRD42021277126. Findings: We included seven studies in which a screening program was newly introduced (median attendance rate, 31%; at moderate-to-critical risk of bias), and seven cohort and eight case-control studies with ongoing screening programs (median attendance rate, 21%; all at critical risk of bias); thus, data of 1,667,117 subjects were included. For the PP effect, the average risk reduction was significant for endoscopy (RR 0.52; 95% credible interval: 0.39-0.79) but nonsignificant for radiography (0.80; 0.60-1.06). The ITS effect was not significant for both radiography (0.98; 0.86-1.09) and endoscopy (0.94; 0.71-1.28). The magnitude of the effects depended on the assumptions for the self-selection bias correction. Restricting the scope to East Asian studies only did not change the results. Interpretation: In limited-quality observational evidence from high-prevalence regions, screening reduced gastric cancer mortality; however, the effects diminished at a program level. Funding: National Cancer Center Japan; and Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development.

Indexed as

Cancer screeningEast AsiaEndoscopyGastric cancerRadiography

Identifiers

PMID37424675
PMCPMC10326711

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.