Observational studyDigestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society2026
Exploratory Analysis of Quality Indicators for Esophagogastroduodenoscopy During Surveillance Following Gastric Endoscopic Scubmucosal Dissection.
Observational study in Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesEsophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is useful for early detection of gastric cancer; however, quality indicators for its performance remain unestablished. We aimed to investigate the candidate quality indicators for EGDs conducted in patients undergoing surveillance following endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for gastric neoplasms.
methodsThis study is a single-center, retrospective, observational analysis. We analyzed data from post-ESD surveillance EGDs between April 2015 and March 2022. The data were divided into Periods A (April 2015-March 2017) and B (April 2017-March 2022). From Period A, we calculated each endoscopist's gastric biopsy rate (gBR), gastric positive biopsy rate (gPBR), and mean examination time as potential quality indicators for EGD performance. In Period B, we calculated the gastric neoplasm detection rate, encompassing cancer and adenoma, as the primary outcome measure. We analyzed the associations between endoscopist quality indicators in Period A and clinical outcomes in Period B.
resultsA total of 6792 EGDs from 2552 patients, conducted by 12 endoscopists, were analyzed. A positive correlation with gastric neoplasm detection rate was observed for gBR (r = 0.621, p = 0.03), but not for the other indicators. Endoscopists with a high gBR (> 36%) had a significantly higher gastric neoplasm detection rate than those with a lower gBR (≤ 30%) (3.6% vs. 2.0%, p < 0.05).
conclusionsA higher gBR was associated with an increased gastric neoplasm detection rate in patients undergoing post-ESD surveillance. This finding suggests the potential of gBR as a quality indicator for EGD performance in this setting.
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.