Trial reportBMC medicine2026
Effect of endoscopic screening for non-cardia gastric cancer: a 12-year report of a population-based randomized trial.
Trial report in BMC medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01688908 (Effcacy of Endoscopic Screening for Esophageal Cancer in China), which is not on this 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.
Effcacy of Endoscopic Screening for Esophageal Cancer in China (ESECC): a Population-based Randomized Controlled Trial
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
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe benefit of endoscopy for non-cardia gastric cancer (GC) prevention lacks evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This study aimed to evaluate the effect of endoscopic screening for non-cardia GC through an RCT.
methodsWe conducted a cluster RCT in rural Hua County, northern China (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01688908). A total of 668 villages were randomly selected and assigned to either undergo upper gastrointestinal endoscopic screening (screening group) or no screening (control group). Permanent residents aged 45-69 years were enrolled from January 2012 to September 2016. Non-cardia GC mortality between the two groups was compared in intention-to-treat, per-protocol, and subgroup analyses. Poisson regression fitted with generalized estimating equations was used, adjusting for baseline characteristics and accounting for village clustering.
resultsThe study enrolled 17,104 participants in the screening group, of whom 15,165 (88.7%) underwent endoscopy, and 16,743 in the control group. After a maximum follow-up of 12 years, non-cardia GC mortality was 13.1 per 100,000 person-years in the screening group and 13.5 per 100,000 person-years in the control group. Intention-to-treat analysis showed a 15% lower non-cardia GC mortality in the screening group compared with the control group (adjusted rate ratio [aRR], 0.85 [95% CI: 0.49-1.50]), although the difference was statistically non-significant. In the per-protocol analysis, the aRR for non-cardia GC mortality was 0.70 (95% CI: 0.38-1.29). A subgroup analysis of the screening group restricted to participants who complied with screening protocol and received timely treatment for detected malignancies yielded similar results, with an aRR of 0.66 (95% CI: 0.35-1.22); neither of these analyses reached statistical significance.
conclusionsIn this trial, endoscopic screening was associated with a non-significant reduction in non-cardia GC mortality; larger trials in higher-incidence settings are needed to confirm a benefit.
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.