SynthesisFrontiers in public health2026
Upper gastrointestinal endoscopic screening uptake and associated factors in East Asia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in public health, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To estimate the pooled uptake of upper gastrointestinal endoscopic screening uptake and to identify factors associated with screening uptake among populations eligible for upper gastrointestinal endoscopic screening. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to identify studies reporting the uptake of upper gastrointestinal endoscopic screening and factors associated with screening participation. The pooled uptake was calculated using the random-effects model. For influencing factors, pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran's Q test and the I Results: A total of 48 studies involving 119,913,685 participants were included in the meta-analysis of screening uptake. The pooled uptake of upper gastrointestinal endoscopic screening was 38% (95% CI: 28-48%), with substantial heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses showed that screening uptake differed significantly by country ( Conclusion: The uptake of upper gastrointestinal endoscopic screening remains suboptimal among screening-eligible populations. Screening participation appears to be influenced by socioeconomic factors, lifestyle factors, disease-related factors, cognitive factors, healthcare-related factors. These findings may inform targeted interventions to improve screening uptake and optimize the implementation of upper gastrointestinal cancer screening programs. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420261279918, identifier CRD420261279918.
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.