ArticleJournal of digestive diseases
The Role of Endoscopic Grading of Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia (EGGIM) in Assessing the Extent and Degree of Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia.
Article in Journal of digestive diseases. 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.
- The Predictive Value of the EGGIM Score for Extensive and Incomplete Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia: Implications for Biopsy Reduction in Endoscopic Practice.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2026Article
- VTH BRAZILIAN CONSENSUS CONFERENCE ON HELICOBACTER PYLORI INFECTION.Arquivos de gastroenterologia · 2026Article
- Impact ofAnnals of gastroenterologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesWe aimed to evaluate the consistency between endoscopic grading of gastric intestinal metaplasia (EGGIM) and the operative link on gastric intestinal metaplasia assessment (OLGIM) staging, as well as the value of endoscopic grading of gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM) in early gastric cancer (EGC) risk.
methodsThe sample size was estimated to be at least 210 patients. To evaluate GIM, EGGIM staging was used during magnifying endoscopy with narrow-band imaging, while the OLGIM staging was carried out according to the updated Sydney system. The consistency between the two scoring systems and the accuracy of EGGIM in diagnosing OLGIM III/IV cases were evaluated. EGC risk was evaluated using the Kimura-Takemoto classification, the operative link on gastritis assessment (OLGA)/OLGIM, and EGGIM.
resultsAmong the 210 patients, 68 (32.4%) had (previous) EGC and 142 (67.6%) had chronic atrophic gastritis (CAG). EGGIM and OLGIM staging showed good consistency (κ = 0.805, U = 12.620, p < 0.001) in diagnosing OLGIM III/IV GIM, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for EGGIM of 0.95. Using a cut-off value of > 4, the sensitivity and specificity were 95.7% and 91.4%, respectively. The EGGIM score was higher in the EGC group than in the CAG group (4.93 vs. 3.92, p < 0.001).
conclusionsEGGIM shows good diagnostic performance and consistency with OLGIM, which can simplify endoscopic surveillance by reducing the need for biopsy. The EGGIM score is associated with EGC risk, and endoscopic surveillance is recommended for patients with EGGIM score > 4.
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.