Endoscopy
Signal score, how each part rates
ActionabilityPrevalenceStakesEvidence strengthNovelty
See the full rubric →Post-Endoscopy Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer in a United States Multicenter Cohort: Site- and Risk-Stratified Trends and Survival.
Clinical takeawayConsider HRCs (specific criteria not detailed in abstract) when auditing endoscopy quality; PEUGIC rates are 3.6-fold higher with HRCs compared to without HRCs. Site-specific benchmarks may better reflect performance than aggregate metrics.
What it foundPost-endoscopy upper GI cancer (PEUGIC) rate was 9.4% overall, higher with high-risk conditions (HRCs) (18.2%) vs without HRCs (5.0%), and varied by site (esophageal 9.6%, gastric 8.6%, duodenal 10.7%).
ContextConfirms PEUGIC as a significant quality gap, with rates stable in low-risk patients but improving in high-risk esophageal and gastric cancer over time. Challenges one-size-fits-all benchmarking.
No standard claimed for this paper
Every paper is compared to the standard governing its question. This one is not: either no standard in the corpus matches it, or the comparison did not hold up on review and was withdrawn rather than published unverified. Both are logged.
Fakhoury B … Desai M · Endoscopy · IF 11.8 · PubMed ↗