SynthesisJournal of gastrointestinal cancer2025
Economic Evaluation of Gastric Cancer Screening Strategies: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Journal of gastrointestinal cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGastric cancer (GC) is one of the most prevalent cancers worldwide, with high mortality and economic burden. Early detection through cost-effective screening strategies can improve patient outcomes and optimize healthcare resource allocation. This systematic review evaluates the cost-effectiveness of various GC screening approaches.
methodsA comprehensive search was conducted in Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, Embase, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database, and Google Scholar for studies published between 1990 and 2023. Relevant studies were selected based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The CHEERS 2022 checklist was used to assess study quality.
resultsA total of 6027 studies were retrieved, and after a two-phase screening and quality assessment, 47 studies were included. Most studies originated from China, Japan, the USA, Singapore, and South Korea. Findings indicate that screening is generally more cost-effective than no screening. Endoscopy was more cost-effective than upper gastrointestinal (UGI) X-ray but not superior to Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) screening, serum pepsinogen (PG) testing, or novel risk scoring methods. H. pylori screening was more cost-effective than endoscopy and symptomatic treatment but not superior to serum PG testing and risk scoring methods. Urea breath test (UBT)-based H. pylori screening was less cost-effective than most alternatives.
conclusionsSelecting cost-effective GC screening strategies can improve early detection rates and reduce healthcare costs. Policymakers should consider population-specific factors when implementing screening programs to maximize health benefits and economic efficiency.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40131569What 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.