Trial reportBMC medicine2025
Opening the black box: defining true-negative outcomes in esophageal cancer screening - a population-based study.
Trial report in BMC medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrated analysis of Morusin inhibiting esophageal cancer via network pharmacology molecular dynamics simulation and in vitro validation.Discover oncology · 2026Article
- Evolving diagnostic and surveillance strategies in esophageal cancer screening: Evidence from population-based studies in China.Chinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu · 2025Article
- Correction: Opening the black box: defining true-negative outcomes in esophageal cancer screening - a population-based study.BMC medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCurrent negativity definition in esophageal cancer screening overlooks the risk heterogeneity between individuals with non-dysplastic Lugol's unstained lesions (ND-LULs) and normal-stained epithelium. We aimed to define the screening negativity by the incidence risk of severe dysplasia and above lesions (SDAs) after chromoendoscopy and ascertain their re-screening interval.
methodsWe enrolled 815 participants with ND-LULs and 14,123 with normal-stained epithelium from the screening arm of a community-based randomized controlled trial (RCT). The control groups included the RCT's unscreened arm (n = 16,473), and population controls matched 1:5 by birth year, sex, and village (4075 controls for ND-LULs group, 70,615 controls for normal-stained group). All participants were followed up for up to 10 years. Poisson regression and the cumulative incidence function compared the cumulative incidence of SDA between groups.
resultsCompared with the RCT control, the cumulative incidence of SDAs was significantly higher in the ND-LULs group over 10 years (adjusted IRR = 3.16, 95% CI: 2.02-4.76) but lower in the normal-stained group (adjusted IRR = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.37-0.72). Similar results were achieved using the general population control. The cumulative incidence of SDAs in the ND-LULs group significantly exceeded controls after 2-3 years while remaining consistently lower in the normal-stained group over 10 years.
conclusionsIndividuals with normal Lugol staining should be considered the genuinely screening-negative population for esophageal cancer. A 10-year screening interval is recommended for normal-stained individuals, while 2-3 years are necessary for ND-LULs.
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.