ArticleBMJ open2025
Results of a modified Delphi consensus on the optimal testing pathway for oesophago-gastric cancer care in the UK.
Article in BMJ open, 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.
- A Delphi consensus for implementing genomic testing in unresectable or metastatic urothelial cancer.BJU international · 2026Article
- PD-L1 CPS in gastroesophageal cancer: differences in routine care versus Checkmate 649 and implications for biopsy-site choice and assay standardisation.British journal of 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo develop expert consensus on the optimal testing pathway for oesophago-gastric (OG) cancer care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The process followed a modified Delphi methodology to develop consensus on the optimal testing pathway for OG cancer care. In November 2023, a review of available literature on the topic of OG cancer was conducted. The results of this review informed a steering group discussion on the barriers and opportunities within the OG testing pathway. Six domains of focus were agreed on and used to develop. 36 agreed statements were developed into a Likert survey, which was distributed by a third party (M3 Global Research). Completed surveys were analysed to produce an arithmetic agreement score for each statement. The results were then reviewed by the steering group to agree on any recommendations and conclusions.
resultsA total of 50 responses were received from consultant oncologists (n=25), pathologists (n=15), specialist oncology pharmacists (n=5) and specialist oncology nurses (n=5). Consensus was achieved in 35/36 statements (97%). The steering group agreed on a commentary on the results and a series of recommendations for best-practice testing in OG cancer. Given the level of agreement and that the stopping criteria were met, it was decided not to undertake further Delphi rounds.
conclusionThe recommendations support the use of a reflex testing approach for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, programmed death ligand 1 and microsatellite instability high/mismatch repair deficiency in patients diagnosed with OG cancer who are suitable for treatment with targeted therapy.
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.