ArticleJMIR public health and surveillance2024
Effectiveness of Risk-Adapted Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Screening in China: Prospective Cohort Study.
Article in JMIR public health and surveillance, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Upper gastrointestinal endoscopic screening uptake and associated factors in East Asia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2026Pooled it
- Inpatient medical costs and their composition among patients with stomach cancer who underwent surgery by tumor location: a hospital-based retrospective study in China.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2026Article
- Early detection of gastric cancer with the assistance of cell-free DNA fragmentomics.Clinical epigenetics · 2026Article
- Upper gastrointestinal cancers global burden profile, trends, contributors, and attributable change in life expectancy from 1990 to 2021.Journal of the National Cancer Center · 2026Article
- Recent advances, comparative performance, and data requirements of artificial intelligence-assisted technologies for the diagnosis of gastric cancer.Frontiers in gastroenterology (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Previous studies have proved the effectiveness of endoscopic screening in rural areas; however, long-term, high-quality evidence regarding the effectiveness of risk-adapted upper gastrointestinal cancer (UGC) sequential screening strategies in resource-rich regions is currently lacking. Objective: The objectives were to validate the effectiveness of risk-adapted sequential screening strategies in UGC prevention and control and assess the potential of sequential screening to lower mortality rates. Methods: Based on the Cancer Screening Program in Urban China, a prospective, large-scale cohort study based on population was conducted to recruit individuals from 4 cities in China from 2013-2019. Those identified as having a high risk of UGC according to a validated risk-score model were advised to undergo endoscopy tests. Follow-up outcomes were tracked until June 2021. Incidence of UGC, UGC-related mortality, and all-cause mortality were evaluated between the screened and nonscreened cohorts. Results: The study included 153,079 participants at baseline. In total, 113,916 (74.42%) of the participants were designated as low risk of UGC. The remaining 39,163 (25.68%) participants were deemed to be at high risk of UGC and were offered gastroscopy tests. Among the high-risk participants, 9627 (compliance rate 24.6%) adhered to the gastroscopy tests. Over a median follow-up of 6.05 (IQR 3.06-7.06) years, 622 UGC cases, 180 UGC deaths, and 1958 all-cause death cases were traced. The screened cohort exhibited the highest cumulative incidence of UGC (119.2 per 100,000 person-years), followed by the nonscreened and low-risk cohorts. Obvious reductions in both all-cause mortality and UGC mortality were observed between those who undertook screening (153.7 and 4.7 per 100,000 person-years, respectively) and the nonscreened group (245.3 and 27 per 100,000 person-years, respectively). The screening population showed a significant 36% and 82% reduction in both all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 0.64, 95% CI 0.49-0.83, P<.001) and UGC mortality (HR 0.18, 95% CI 0.04-0.74, P=.02), respectively, compared to the nonscreened group. Reductions of 35% in all-cause mortality (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.49-0.86, P=.003) and 81% in UGC mortality (HR 0.19, 95% CI 0.05-0.80, P=.02) were observed in participants aged older than 55 years in the screened group compared to the nonscreened group. The reductions in all-cause mortality and UGC mortality were statistically significant in males (all-cause mortality: HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.47-0.88, P=.005; UGC mortality: HR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01-0.72, P=.02), but significant reductions were not observed in females (all P values were >.05). Conclusions: Our study suggests the significance of one-off risk-adapted UGC screening in reducing both all-cause mortality and UGC mortality, particularly among high-risk individuals, indicating its effectiveness in UGC prevention and management.
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.