ArticleEsophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society2025
Evaluating the discrepancies between evidence-based and community standard practices in the endoscopic diagnosis of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a survey study.
Article in Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society, 2025. 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.
- Community standard practices in the endoscopic treatment of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a nationwide survey in Japan.Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 2026Article
- Post-endoscopy esophageal squamous cell carcinoma with invasion of the muscularis mucosa or deeper detected in surveillance endoscopy after esophageal endoscopic resection.Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe practice of endoscopic diagnosis of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) often diverges from evidence-based standards due to various factors, including inadequate dissemination of evidence or a mismatch between evidence and real-world contexts. This survey aimed to identify discrepancies between evidence-based standard practices and community standard practices for ESCC among endoscopists.
methodsAn online survey targeting endoscopists who perform upper gastrointestinal endoscopy at least weekly was conducted to collect data on clinical practices related to ESCC diagnosis. The survey, comprising 20 questions, was disseminated through multiple professional networks. Descriptive statistical analysis and logistic regression were performed to analyze the data.
resultsData from 819 endoscopists were included in the analyses. Notably, a significant proportion employed narrow-band imaging/blue-laser imaging over iodine staining, and preferences varied based on risk assessment for ESCC. In total, 64.0% of endoscopists primarily used iodine solution at a concentration of 1% or less, while 96.5% of endoscopists performed an observation of the oral cavity and the pharynx when conducting upper gastrointestinal endoscopies on individuals at high risk of ESCC. The surveillance interval for metachronous multiple ESCCs was most commonly every 6 months, followed by every 12 months. In addition, most physicians conducted surveillance of metastatic recurrence at 6-month intervals.
conclusionsThis survey highlights significant gaps between evidence-based and community standard practices in the endoscopic diagnosis of ESCC. These findings underscore the need for enhanced dissemination of evidence-based guidelines and consideration of real-world clinical contexts to bridge these gaps and optimize patient care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39313593What 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.