SynthesisGastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association2026
A systematic review of factors associated with the patient and diagnostic intervals in gastric cancer.
Synthesis in Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association, 2026. 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionMany patients with gastric cancer in low-incidence countries are diagnosed at advanced stages, underscoring the need for earlier detection to enable curative treatment. This systematic review aimed to summarize risk factors affecting the patient interval (symptom recognition to first contact with a healthcare professional) and the diagnostic interval (first contact to diagnosis). METHODOLOGY: We reviewed the peer-reviewed literature from 2012 to 2025. The search was conducted across CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO, with each title/abstract and full-text article reviewed by two team members. We extracted publication details, study methodology, variables, participant demographics, clinical descriptors, and interval-related information. We followed PRISMA reporting guidelines.
resultsOf 2,848 references screened, 8 studies were included: three on patient intervals and five on diagnostic intervals. Patient-interval studies involved 31 to 187 participants, with median lengths ranging from 9 to 210 days; patient-reported intervals were typically longer than those based on health data alone. Risk factors for longer patient intervals included herbal remedy use, symptom alarm and severity, older age, and multimorbidity. Diagnostic-interval studies included 69 to 2,175 participants, with median intervals of 24 to 84 days; factors associated with longer intervals included lower family-physician density, older age, early-stage disease, female sex, and low diagnostic suspicion.
conclusionLong intervals between symptom onset and diagnosis remain a major challenge for people diagnosed with gastric cancer in countries without screening programs. This review identifies significant methodological gaps restricting comparability. Further research with standardized definitions and equity-focused approaches is needed to inform early detection and patient education initiatives.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42417931What 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.