SynthesisBMJ open2026
Endoscopic biopsy strategies for gastric ulcers: an updated systematic review.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo systematically summarise recent evidence on endoscopic biopsy for gastric ulcer.
designSystematic review of clinical studies. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI and CiNii Research were searched for studies published from 2015 to May 2025. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Original studies involving adults with endoscopically diagnosed gastric ulcers or ulcerative gastric lesions directly informing biopsy strategy were eligible if they evaluated biopsy timing, number, site or related diagnostic outcomes. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Owing to substantial clinical and methodological heterogeneity, findings were synthesised narratively.
resultsSeven studies were included and grouped into four domains: biopsy timing, biopsy number, biopsy site and safety. Available data suggested that most malignancies may be identifiable at the initial endoscopy examination although repeat biopsy during ulcer healing or scarring might still detect some missed cancers. Evidence on the biopsy site remained limited and inconsistent, and findings from healed-phase ulcers further suggested that the anatomical site alone may be insufficient to guide biopsy strategy. Available studies also indicated that four well-targeted biopsies may be adequate for some depressed or polypoid lesions whereas more extensive sampling might be needed for infiltrative or otherwise suspicious lesions. Limited safety data did not show a clear increase in adverse events with broader biopsy strategies or the biopsy of stabilised bleeding ulcers.
conclusionsContemporary evidence on endoscopic biopsy for gastric ulcers remains limited, heterogeneous and largely observational. Available data suggest that biopsy at initial endoscopy and adequate, lesion-targeted sampling may improve diagnostic yield, while follow-up and intensive sampling should be individualised according to endoscopic appearance, histological findings and clinical suspicion. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD420251157851.
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.