Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39958654›Full record

ArticleEndoscopy international open2025

Endoscopic grading of gastric intestinal metaplasia using blue light imaging in a low-risk population: Multicenter cross-sectional validation study.

Marta Rodriguez-Carrasco, Gianluca Esposito, Emanuele Dilaghi, Guido Manfredi, Saverio Alicante, Elisabetta Buscarini, Bruno Annibale, Mário Dinis-Ribeiro

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Endoscopy international open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Reproducible Topographic Phenotypes and Three-Phase Anatomical Evolution of Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia.Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
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.

Marta Rodriguez-CarrascoGastroenterology Department, Instituto Portugues de Oncologia do Porto Francisco Gentil, Porto, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-5669-6196
Gianluca EspositoDepartment of Medical-Surgical Sciences and Translational Medicine, Sant'Andrea Hospital, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Emanuele DilaghiDepartment of Medical-Surgical Sciences and Translational Medicine, Sant'Andrea Hospital, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Guido ManfrediGastroenterology and Endoscopy Department, Maggiore Hospital Crema, Crema, Italy.
Saverio AlicanteGastroenterology and Endoscopy Department, Maggiore Hospital Crema, Crema, Italy.
Elisabetta BuscariniGastroenterology and Endoscopy Department, Maggiore Hospital Crema, Crema, Italy.
Bruno AnnibaleDepartment of Medical-Surgical Sciences and Translational Medicine, Sant'Andrea Hospital, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Mário Dinis-RibeiroGastroenterology Department, Instituto Portugues de Oncologia do Porto Francisco Gentil, Porto, Portugal.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background study aims: Detecting gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM) with white light endoscopy (WLE) remains a challenge and virtual chromoendoscopy methods have been shown to increase accuracy. We aimed to externally validate the Endoscopic Grading of Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia (EGGIM) using blue light imaging (BLI). Methods: First, the reliability of BLI and the EGGIM score was evaluated through assessment of 90 images divided into three sets of 30. A multicenter cross-sectional study was conducted at two Italian centers involving 102 patients (510 biopsies). Both per-biopsy and per-patient analyses were performed to ascertain accuracy of BLI in detecting and staging GIM (vs. histology). Results: BLI significantly enhanced interobserver agreement of endoscopic diagnosis of GIM, with a Fleiss Kappa of 0.4 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.3-0.5), compared to 0.2 (95% CI 0.2-0.3) with WLE. Concordance was particularly strong in applying the EGGIM score (weighted Kappa 0.7; 95% CI 0.5-0.9). BLI showed significant improvements in sensitivity over WLE, with an increase observed in both per-biopsy analysis (82%; 95%CI 73.7-89.0 vs. 50%;95% CI 40.6-60.3) and per-patient analysis (96%; 95% CI 84.5-99.4 vs. 68%;95% CI 52.4-81.4). The area under the curve of EGGIM in diagnosing OLGIM III/IV was 0.9 (95% CI 0.8-1.0), confirming EGGIM > 4 being the optimal threshold (sensitivity of 80%, specificity of 88%). Conclusions: Our study validates BLI integrated with the EGGIM system as an effective strategy, highlighting its precision in identifying advanced GIM stages. BLI's notable sensitivity enhances its use as a complementary tool to WLE, significantly improving gastric cancer risk assessment.

Indexed as

Diagnosis and imaging (inc chromoendoscopy, NBI, iSCAN, FICE, CLE)Endoscopic resection (ESD, EMRc, ...)Endoscopy Upper GI TractPrecancerous conditions & cancerous lesions (displasia and cancer) stomach

Identifiers

PMID39958654
PMCPMC11827722

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.