ArticleBMC gastroenterology2024
Endoscopic diagnosis of gastric and oesophageal cancer in Lusaka, Zambia: a retrospective analysis.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevalence and patterns of peptic ulcer disease in Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Pooled it
- Indications and endoscopic findings of upper gastrointestinal diseases in Africa: A systematic review & meta-analysis.PloS one · 2025Pooled it
- Histopathological subtypes and topographical subsites of gastric cancer in Sub-Saharan Africa: a scoping review.BMC cancer · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThere are uncertainties surrounding the spectrum of upper gastrointestinal (UGI) diseases in sub-Saharan Africa. This is mainly due to the limitations of data collection and recording. We previously reported an audit of UGI endoscopic diagnoses in Zambia spanning from 1977 to 2014. We now have extended this analysis to include subsequent years, in order to provide a more comprehensive picture of how the diagnoses have evolved over 4 decades.
methodsWe combined data collected from the endoscopy unit at the University Teaching Hospital (UTH) in Lusaka during a previous review with that collected from the beginning of 2015 to the end of 2021. Since 2015, an electronic data base of endoscopy reports at the UTH was kept. The electronic data base was composed of drop-down menus that allowed for standardised reporting of findings. Collected data were coded by two experienced endoscopists and analysed.
resultsIn total, the analysis included 25,849 endoscopic records covering 43 years. The number of endoscopic procedures performed per year increased drastically in 2010. With the exception of the last 2 years, the proportion of normal endoscopies also increased during the time under review. In total, the number of gastric cancer (GC) cases was 658 (3%) while that of oesophageal cancer (OC) was 1168 (5%). The number of GC and OC diagnoses increased significantly over the period under review, (p < 0.001 for both). For OC the increase remained significant when analysed as a percentage of all procedures performed (p < 0.001). Gastric ulcers (GU) were diagnosed in 2095 (8%) cases, duodenal ulcers (DU) in 2276 (9%) cases and 239 (1%) had both ulcer types. DU diagnosis showed a significantly decreasing trend over each decade (p < 0.001) while GU followed an increasing trend (p < 0.001).
conclusionsUGI endoscopic findings in Lusaka, Zambia, have evolved over the past four decades with a significant increase of OC and GU diagnoses. Reasons for these observations are yet to be established.
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.