ArticleScientific reports2025
Coprevalence of modifiable gastric cancer risk factors and gastric health among Chinese high-risk groups.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study aims to characterise the distribution and co-prevalence patterns of 11 modifiable gastric cancer (GC) risk factors and to examine their association with gastric health. The research utilised baseline data from the upper gastrointestinal cancer (UGC) screening, early detection and treatment project, as well as the oesophageal cancer prospective cohort in Yangzhong City, spanning 2017-2023. The study sample comprised 12,071 adults aged 40-69 who had completed the screening process, had all relevant study variables, and had no prior history of cancer or upper gastrointestinal surgery. The 11 modifiable GC risk factors (regular smoking, drinking, inadequate intake of vegetables and fruit, intake of red meat and its products, pickled food consumption, irregular diet, fried food consumption, leftover food consumption, eating too quickly, high-salt diet, and Helicobacter pylori infection), and pathologically diagnosed gastric diseases were assessed. Co-prevalence of risk factors was observed in 97.90% of participants. The most prevalent risk factor in both genders was inadequate intake of vegetables and fruit, followed by consumption of red meat and its products. The most common combinations of risk factors include inadequate intake of vegetables and fruit, consumption of red meat and its products, pickled food, and leftover food. An incremental increase in the number of these risk factors corresponded to a significant elevation in the risk of gastric disease, ranging from 8.3 to 9.3% (men: adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.093, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.053-1.134; women: AOR 1.083, 95% CI 1.041-1.128). Participants with more risk factors were more likely to have gastric disease than those with 0-2 risk factors (men with 3-5 risk factors: AOR 1.576, 95% CI 1.217-2.042; men with ≥ 6 risk factors: AOR 1.756, 95% CI 1.344-2.295; women with ≥ 6 risk factors: AOR 1.449, 95% CI 1.162-1.806). Our study reveals significant differences in the prevalence of 11 modifiable GC risk factors among individuals at high risk for UGC in Yangzhong City, and these risk factors exhibit significant co-prevalence. Individuals with more risk factors typically experience poorer gastric health. Therefore, it is crucial to implement comprehensive interventions to enhance public awareness of GC-related knowledge, beliefs, and behaviours. Simultaneously, effectively identifying high-risk groups and providing tailored interventions during screening are essential for improving gastric health.
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.