Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40195643›Full record

ReviewClinical endoscopy2025

How to improve the quality of upper gastrointestinal diagnostic endoscopy?

Mário Dinis-Ribeiro, Miguel Areia

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

2 authors.

Mário Dinis-RibeiroGastroenterology Department, Porto Comprehensive Cancer Center, Porto, Portugal.
Miguel AreiaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Instituto Português de Oncologia de Coimbra, Porto, Portugal.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy is commonly performed worldwide and is the gold standard for most upper gastrointestinal tract diseases, particularly cancer. This review will use gastric cancer as an example to tackle how providers can improve the quality of endoscopy being delivered to reduce the missing rate, which may reach up to 10% of cases. In brief, endoscopists must consider pre-, intra-, and post-procedural attitudes to achieve this purpose. "Preparing or planning endoscopy," cancer as a possible diagnosis in all procedures should be thought. Fasting of patients and the use of mucosal cleaning solutions help ensure mucosal cleansing, while planned sedation increases comfort. During endoscopy, taking time for complete inspection and photodocumentation to assure completeness. Importantly, training and knowledge of cancer (superficial) endoscopic features, particularly using advanced imaging technologies, are of paramount importance, as they are regular post-endoscopy audits of practice that positively impact quality. Finally, human-machine interaction through artificial intelligence has been shown to improve photodocumentation, detection, and auditing, and it may well assure a more homogenous service, particularly among low-performing deliverers.

Indexed as

Early detection of cancerGastroscopyQuality improvement

Identifiers

PMID40195643
PMCPMC12489563

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.