ArticleDEN open2024
Population effectiveness of endoscopy screening for mortality reduction in gastric cancer.
Article in DEN open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this 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.
ROGCAS - Retrospective Observational Gastric Cancer Study
Real-world Incremental Costs of Opportunistic Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Added to Colorectal Cancer Screening and the Economic Burden of Gastric Cancer Management: a Retrospective Cohort Study - Study Protocol
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of clinical and pathological characteristics between early gastric cardiac cancer and early gastric non-cardiac cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer: A major challenge for the west.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2024Article
- Characteristics of early gastric tumors with different differentiation and predictors of long-term outcomes after endoscopic submucosal dissection.World journal of gastroenterology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: No randomized controlled trials have compared endoscopic screening with no screening for gastric cancer on an intention-to-screen basis, and the population-based evidence is insufficient. This study aimed to identify factors contributing to the population effectiveness of cancer screening, estimate the number needed to screen (NNS) to reduce one gastric cancer-related death, and evaluate the expected mortality-rate reduction in endoscopic screening for gastric cancer in 184 countries. Methods: Factors contributing to the attributable risk, NNS, and mortality-rate reduction were identified. A rapid review was performed in PubMed to estimate the pooled relative risk of endoscopic screening compared to that of no screening for mortality reduction. NNSs and mortality-rate reduction were estimated using the pooled relative risk and GLOBOCAN data. Results: The crude mortality rate, the effectiveness of the screening modality, and the screened rate contributed to the attributable risk, NNS, and mortality-rate reduction in cancer screening. The pooled relative risk was 0.58 in endoscopy screening compared to that in no screening. NNSs and expected mortality-rate reduction differed across countries and ranged from 2522 to 91,575 and 0.2 to 7.9 (per 100,000 individuals) for the screened rate of 20%, respectively. Conclusions: In addition to the effectiveness of the used modality, the disease burden and screened rate were important in the population effectiveness of cancer screening. Regarding the high NNSs and the low expected mortality-rate reduction, population-based endoscopic screening seems not to be effective in many countries, and these results are meaningful in decision-making regarding the introduction of endoscopic screening.
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.