ReviewGastro hep advances2023
Stage-Specific Survival From Esophageal Cancer in China and Implications for Control Strategies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses.
Review in Gastro hep advances, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy and Safety of DVDMS-Photodynamic Therapy for Dysphagia in Advanced Esophageal Cancer: A Phase II Clinical Trial.Cancer science · 2026Article
- Construction and validation of a machine learning model for predicting anastomotic leak following radical esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Screening for second primary tumors in the aerodigestive tract in non-Asian populations with head and neck cancer - systematic review and meta-analysis.ESMO gastrointestinal oncology · 2025Review
- A propensity score-matched analysis to evaluate the benefit of adjuvant therapy on disease recurrence of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma after R0 esophagectomy.Journal of thoracic disease · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Esophageal cancer claims more than 500,000 deaths worldwide, with half occurring in China. We aimed to synthesize existing evidence on stage-specific survival from this cancer in China to inform cancer control strategies. Methods: English and Chinese literature databases were systematically searched to identify original research published up to May 31, 2019 that reported stage-specific survival from esophageal cancer in China. Two meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models to summarize stage-specific survival differences on relative and absolute scales. The number of esophageal cancer deaths that might have been prevented by early detection in China, in 2018, was estimated assuming 2 different downstaging scenarios. Results: One hundred fifty eligible studies were identified, 97 had non-overlapping study populations (83,063 participants), 47 were included in the meta-analysis of hazard ratios, and 26 in the meta-analysis of survival probabilities. Late-stage (III-IV) was associated with 92% higher hazard of death compared with early-stage (0-II) (95% confidence interval 1.62-2.28), corresponding to an absolute 5-year survival difference of 31.2% (29.9%-32.4%). In all, 5.2% esophageal cancer deaths could have been prevented in China, in 2018, if the observed stage distribution at diagnosis (∼50% early-stage) was shifted to the real-life conditions of a population-based endoscopic screening program (∼60% early-stage) and 26.9% if shifted to that observed in the controlled setting of a randomized trial (∼90% early-stage). Conclusion: Shifting downwards the stage distribution of esophageal cancer through screening would bring moderate reductions in mortality from the disease. Treatment improvements for early-stage patients are needed to reduce further mortality from this cancer.
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.