ReviewClinical endoscopy2025
How to improve the quality of upper gastrointestinal diagnostic endoscopy?
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A comparison of the upright seated versus left lateral decubitus position during pediatric sedation-free transnasal endoscopy.JPGN reports · 2026Article
- Proteomic Analysis of Extracellular Vesicles Reveals Vitronectin and Laminin Subunit Alpha-3 as Candidate Biomarkers for Gastric Cancer.Gut and liver · 2026Article
- Median effective dose and 95% effective dose of oliceridine combined with ciprofol for painless gastroscopy: a dose-finding study based on Dixon's up-and-down method.Frontiers in pharmacology · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.