ArticleCancer medicine2023
How should extra-large Lugol-unstained lesions of the esophagus be treated? Results from a population-based cohort study.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- To dye or not to dye? Comparing real-world diagnostic performance of white light, electronic, and Lugol's chromoendoscopy for esophageal squamous neoplasia.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- How should extra-large Lugol-unstained lesions of the esophagus be treated? Results from a population-based cohort study.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCurrent guidelines recommend only severe dysplasia and above (SDA) lesions of the esophageal squamous epithelium for clinical intervention. However, the histopathologic diagnosis derived from tissue biopsies may be subject to underestimation of severity.
methods1073 participants from whom biopsies were taken at baseline chromoendoscopic examination in a population-based screening trial were enrolled in this study. The size of the Lugol-unstained lesions (LULs) was mainly analyzed. The outcome was defined as SDA lesions either identified at baseline screening, or during follow-up, collectively referred to as the cumulative risk of SDA. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to evaluate the cumulative risk of SDA.
resultsOne hundred and forty-six SDA cases were identified in the study period. Participants with large LULs had a high cumulative incidence of SDA (cumulative incidence
conclusionsResults from this study suggest physician-patient shared decision-making regarding clinical treatment or intensive surveillance should be carried out for LULs >20 mm in the esophagus, regardless of the histologic diagnosis. For those with LULs of 16-20 mm, intensive surveillance would also best be considered.
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.