Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40917762›Full record

ReviewGastro hep advances2025

A Systematic Review of Risk Prediction Models for Esophageal Adenocarcinoma in the General Population.

Liyan Zhao, Binbin Chen, Jesper Lagergren, Shao-Hua Xie

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Gastro hep advances, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Liyan ZhaoDepartment of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, School of Public Health, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.
Binbin ChenDepartment of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, School of Public Health, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.
Jesper LagergrenUpper Gastrointestinal Surgery, Department of Molecular medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
Shao-Hua XieDepartment of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, School of Public Health, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Aims: Risk prediction models can identify individuals at high risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma. This systematic review aimed to critically appraise the available models for projecting absolute risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma in the general population. Methods: We searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for studies of risk prediction models for esophageal adenocarcinoma. Data were extracted from eligible studies according to the checklist for critical appraisal and data extraction for systematic reviews of prediction modelling studies. Risk of bias and applicability were assessed using the prediction model risk of bias assessment tool. Results: We identified 7 studies. Age, sex, gastroesophageal reflux disease, body mass index, and tobacco smoking were the most common predictors. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve ranged between 0.76 and 0.88 in the derivation datasets. The models based on 2 cohort studies showed good agreement between observed and predicted risks. All studies had at least 1 domain with high risk of bias, primarily attributable to methodological shortcomings in the data analysis. Conclusion: Most risk prediction models showed good performance in identifying individuals at high risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma. Validation in external populations and cost-effectiveness evaluation are needed before these models can be applied in public health and clinical practice.

Indexed as

Critical appraisalEsophageal neoplasmsPrecision preventionRisk assessment

Identifiers

PMID40917762
PMCPMC12409981

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.