ReviewGastro hep advances2025
A Systematic Review of Risk Prediction Models for Esophageal Adenocarcinoma in the General Population.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.