Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39208876›Full record

ArticleEndoscopy2025

The variation in post-endoscopy upper gastrointestinal cancer rates among endoscopy providers in England and associated factors: a population-based study.

Umair Kamran, Felicity Evison, Eva Judith Ann Morris, Matthew J Brookes, Matthew David Rutter, Mimi McCord, Nicola J Adderley, Nigel Trudgill

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
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

8 authors.

Umair KamranDepartment of Gastroenterology, Sandwell and West Birmingham NHS Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.ORCID 0000-0001-6531-9205
Felicity EvisonData Science, Research, Development and Innovation, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Eva Judith Ann MorrisBig Data Institute, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Matthew J BrookesDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Wolverhampton, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Matthew David RutterDepartment of Gastroenterology, North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust, Stockton-on-Tees, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.ORCID 0000-0001-9507-0295
Mimi McCord-, Heartburn Cancer UK, London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Nicola J AdderleyInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Nigel TrudgillDepartment of Gastroenterology, Sandwell and West Birmingham NHS Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Funding

Cancer Research UK PRCRPG-NOV22/100003Research for Patient Benefit Programme NIHR 201571
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPost-endoscopy upper gastrointestinal cancer (PEUGIC) is an important key performance indicator for endoscopy quality. We examined variation in PEUGIC rates among endoscopy providers in England and explored associated factors.

methodsThe was a population-based, retrospective, case-control study, examining data from National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service and Hospital Episode Statistics databases for esophageal and gastric cancers diagnosed between 2009 and 2018 in England. PEUGIC were cancers diagnosed 6 to 36 months after an endoscopy that did not diagnose cancer. Associated factors were identified using multivariable logistic regression analyses.

resultsThe national PEUGIC rate was 8.5%, varying from 5% to 13% among endoscopy providers. Factors associated with PEUGIC included: female sex (odds ratio [OR] 1.29 [95%CI 1.23-1.36]); younger age (age >80 years, OR 0.52 [0.48-0.56], compared with ≤60 years); increasing comorbidity (Charlson score >4, OR 5.06 [4.45-5.76]); history of esophageal ulcer (OR 3.30 [3.11-3.50]), Barrett's esophagus (OR 3.21 [3.02-3.42]), esophageal stricture (OR 1.28 [1.20-1.37]), or gastric ulcer (OR 1.55 [1.44-1.66]); squamous cell carcinoma (OR 1.50 [1.39-1.61]); and UK national endoscopy accreditation status - providers requiring improvement (OR 1.10 [1.01-1.20]), providers never assessed (OR 1.24 [1.04-1.47]).

conclusionPEUGIC rates varied threefold among endoscopy providers, suggesting unwarranted differences in endoscopy quality. PEUGIC was associated with endoscopy findings known to be associated with upper gastrointestinal cancer and a lack of national endoscopy provider accreditation. PEUGIC variations suggest an opportunity to raise performance standards to detect upper gastrointestinal cancers earlier and improve outcomes.

Indexed as

Esophageal NeoplasmsStomach NeoplasmsAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsBarrett EsophagusCase-Control StudiesEndoscopy, GastrointestinalEnglandFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsSex Factors

Identifiers

PMID39208876
PMCPMC11864345

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.