SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2022
The role of the endoscopic grading of gastric intestinal metaplasia in assessing gastric cancer risk: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Therapeutic effect of metformin on reversing gastric intestinal metaplasia.Chinese medical journal · 2026Trial
- Artificial intelligence for endoscopic grading of gastric intestinal metaplasia: advancing risk stratification for gastric cancer.Endoscopy · 2025Article
- Screening for and surveillance of premalignant conditions of the stomach.Best practice & research. Clinical gastroenterology · 2025Review
- Chronic Atrophic Gastritis and Intestinal Metaplasia: A Latin American Perspective.The Korean journal of helicobacter and upper gastrointestinal research · 2024Review
- Endoscopic Grading and Sampling of Gastric Precancerous Lesions: A Comprehensive Literature Review.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Review
- Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia: Challenges and the Opportunity for Precision Prevention.Cancers · 2023Review
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and aim: Patients with gastric intestinal metaplasia (IM) are at increased risk of gastric cancer (GC). The endoscopic grading of gastric intestinal metaplasia (EGGIM) with high-definition endoscopes has shown the potential to facilitate GC risk stratification. However, a comprehensive review and meta-analysis of published articles are lacking. We conducted a meta-analysis to access the value of EGGIM in the assessment of histological IM. Materials: Studies were selected from PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane (last selection, Jun 2022). We extracted relevant data to calculate the accuracy of EGGIM compared with the operative link of gastric intestinal metaplasia (OLGIM) and to calculate pooled odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) assessing GC risk with different grading. Results: Four diagnostic studies and three case-control clinical trials were included in the analysis, which included 665 patients and 738 patients, respectively. Compared with OLGIM III/IV, EGGIM(5-10) had a pooled sensitivity and specificity of 0.92(95%CI 0.86-0.96) and 0.90(95%CI 0.88-0.93), and the area under the curve(AUC) was 0.9702. In assessing early GC, the pooled OR of patients with EGGIM(5-10) was 7.46(95%CI 3.41-16.31) compared with that of EGGIM(0-4). Conclusions: EGGIM is highly consistent with OLGIM, and patients with EGGIM(5-10) are at a higher risk for early GC. Some heterogeneity in the current research suggests that we need to carry out more strict control of confounding factors. Systematic Review Registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=248691], (
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.