ArticleBritish journal of cancer2025
Effect of risk-based screening for upper gastrointestinal cancers: a multi-center real-world study.
Article in British journal of cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Spatiotemporal co-occurrence patterns and related risk factors of esophageal and lip and oral cavity cancers among older adults across 203 countries and territories: a machine learning-driven systematic analysis.Annals of medicine · 2026Article
- Effectiveness of Risk-based Sequential Screening for Esophageal and Gastric Cancer (ERSS-EGC): A study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.Chinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu · 2026Article
- To dye or not to dye? Comparing real-world diagnostic performance of white light, electronic, and Lugol's chromoendoscopy for esophageal squamous neoplasia.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence-driven personalized dietary recommendations for gastric cancer high-risk populations: a narrative review.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate the feasibility, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of risk-based sequential screening for upper gastrointestinal (UGI) cancer via questionnaire-based quantitative models.
methodsWe applied the risk-based screening strategy to the ongoing government-administered screening project in two areas (Longde and Litong) of Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region, China. Through epidemiological investigation, participants assessed as high-risk were invited for endoscopic screening.
resultsA total of 9492 participants were enroled and completed questionnaire-based assessment, and 2552 (26.89%) participants were evaluated as high-risk. Among the high-risk subjects, 1198 (46.94%) individuals further received endoscopic examination. The detection rate of risk-based screening was 2.28 times as high as that of historical data of universal screening (p = 0.002) (Longde: 2.15% vs. 0.99%; Litong: 1.18% vs. 0.38%), with a similar early detection rate of ~60-70%. The average cost for detecting one case and the average cost for detecting one early case were 30.76% lower (Longde: $12,919 vs. $16,783; Litong: $21,836 vs. $45,512) and 28.99% lower (Longde: $20,993 vs. $24,475; Litong: $30,570 vs. $75,854), respectively, than those for universal screening.
conclusionsThis real-world, multi-centre study demonstrates that risk-based sequential screening is feasible and cost-effective in detecting UGI cancers, and is expected to be applied in other areas.
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.