ArticleEndoscopy international open2025
Post-endoscopy esophageal adenocarcinoma and root cause analysis in Auckland, New Zealand.
Article in Endoscopy international open, 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.
- An Integrated FMEA-RCA Risk-Management Approach for Deep Vein Thrombosis Prevention in Patients Undergoing Total Knee Arthroplasty.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and study aims: Post-endoscopy esophageal adenocarcinomas (PEEC) challenge timely diagnosis of esophageal adenocarcinomas (OAs). This study aimed to determine prevalence of PEECs in Auckland region and elucidate the most plausible causes through a root-cause analysis framework. Patients and methods: OA cases diagnosed in Auckland from 2013 to 2022 were retrieved from the New Zealand Cancer Registry (NZCR). Electronic clinical data were collected via the Regional Clinical Portal software. The primary outcome was PEEC prevalence, defined as OA diagnosed 6 to 36 months following an esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) that failed to detect the cancer. Identified PEECs were classified into six categories. Results: Among 633 OA cases, 45 (7.1%) were PEECs. A higher prevalence of PEEC was observed in patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE) (18.1% vs 2.7%), undergoing surveillance EGDs (52.6% vs 3.6%) and with early-stage cancers. Root-cause analysis delineated the PEEC causes, classified as follows: A (17.8%): lesion was identified, endoscopic assessment was adequate, follow-up was appropriately planned and executed, yet PEEC developed; B (17.8%): follow-up was delayed due to administrative factors; C (22.2%): follow-up decisions were inappropriate; D (22.2%): inadequate endoscopic assessment; E (11.1%): lesion was unidentified despite adequate assessment; and F (8.9%): lesion was unidentified and assessment was inadequate. Categories B, C, D, and F comprised 71.1% of cases deemed potentially avoidable. Conclusions: Auckland's PEEC prevalence aligns with international post-endoscopy upper gastrointestinal cancer rates. Root-cause analysis underscores that a significant proportion of PEECs may be preventable with improved 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.