ReviewDigestive diseases and sciences2026
Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia After Helicobacter pylori Eradication: Reframing the Reversibility Controversy.
Review in Digestive diseases and sciences, 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
purposeTo critically examine the evidence for and against reversibility of gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM) after Helicobacter pylori eradication, reframe the two-decade controversy, and propose a hypothesis-generating framework for risk-stratified management.
methodsNarrative synthesis of meta-analyses, cohort studies, randomized controlled trials, and mechanistic studies (2007-2026) identified through PubMed and Web of Science.
resultsThe evidence has swung from early meta-analyses (2007-2011) concluding against IM reversibility to recent syntheses (2023-2025) demonstrating regression with prolonged follow-up. In early 2026, two reviews reached opposing conclusions: Song and Yu proposed an oncogenic memory model of persistent mucosal injury, epigenetic and immune alterations, and microbiome dysbiosis, while Chen et al. maintained that part of GIM exhibits meaningful reversibility. Extending this framework, we propose a fourth, largely irreversible dimension-histological memory-encompassing spasmolytic polypeptide-expressing metaplasia (SPEM) progression and stem cell niche alteration, which deepens the mucosal injury component of oncogenic memory. Known predictive factors (OLGA/OLGIM stage, subtype, age, eradication timing, and oncogenic memory burden) are organized into a unified reversibility gradient that reframes the binary question in risk-stratified terms, from which a hypothesis-generating three-tier surveillance framework is derived.
conclusionGIM reversibility is a continuous function of lesion characteristics, host factors, time since eradication, intervention intensity, and oncogenic memory burden rather than a binary property. The clinically relevant question is whose GIM, under what conditions, over what time frame, and with what residual risk reduction. The frameworks are hypothesis-generating, not validated clinical recommendations; prospective validation of risk-stratified surveillance represents the most urgent research priority.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42860477What 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.