ArticleAnnals of gastroenterology
Effective endoscopic management of gastric neoplastic complications in patients with autoimmune gastritis: results of a monocentric study of 88 patients.
Article in Annals of gastroenterology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Risk of Gastric Neoplasms in Patients with Autoimmune Gastritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Gut and liver · 2026Pooled it
- Risk assessment of type I gastric neuroendocrine tumors based on endoscopic and clinical features of autoimmune gastritis.World journal of gastroenterology · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: We evaluated the efficacy of endoscopic treatment (ET) for gastric neoplastic complications of autoimmune gastritis (AIG). We also assessed the safety of ET and the risk factors for the occurrence of neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) and gastric adenocarcinoma (GA). Methods: This was a retrospective, single-center, observational study. All patients diagnosed with AIG between 1987 and 2019 and had at least 1 upper endoscopy available were included. Results: The study population comprised 88 patients (68.2% female). The median follow up was 5 years (range 1-28). A total of 132 NETs were diagnosed in 39/88 patients (44.3%) (median age 50.0 years, range 27.0-85.0 years). The mean lesion size was 7.1 mm (range 1-30); there were 80 G1 NETs and 52 G2 NETs. Among the 132 lesions, 86.3% (114/132) were endoscopically resected, mostly by endoscopic mucosal resection (105/114, 92.1%), without complications. Only 1 patient underwent surgery. Twelve patients (13.6%) (7 females; median age, 76.0 years; range, 53.0-90.0 years) presented with GA. Of these, 66.7% (8/12) needed surgery, while 4 patients underwent exclusive endoscopic resection. Only 2 patients presented with NETs and GA (2.8%). Patients who presented with NETs were significantly younger at AIG diagnosis than patients with GA: 52.0 (18.0-85.0) vs. 67.0 (44.0-81.0) years (P=0.008). Patients who presented with GA were significantly older than those who presented with NETs: 76.0 (53.0-90.0) vs. 50.0 (27.0-85.0) years (P<0.001). Conclusion: ET of NETs for AIG is effective and safe. GA is rarer, occurs in significantly older patients, and usually requires surgery.
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.