Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Jan;98(4):e14240.
doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000014240.

Diagnostic performance of serum pepsinogen assay for the prediction of atrophic gastritis and gastric neoplasms: Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

Affiliations

Diagnostic performance of serum pepsinogen assay for the prediction of atrophic gastritis and gastric neoplasms: Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

Chang Seok Bang et al. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019 Jan.

Abstract

Background: Serum pepsinogen assay (sPGA) combining concentration of pepsinogen I (PG I), and the ratio of PG I/II is the noninvasive biomarker for predicting chronic atrophic gastritis (CAG) and neoplasms reflecting mucosal secretory status. Although various cut-off values have been suggested, PG I ≤70 ng/mL and PG I/II ≤3 have been widely accepted. However, previous studies for diagnostic test accuracy presented only pooled outcomes, which cannot discriminate the diagnostic validity of sPGA with cut-off of PG I ≤70 ng/mL and PG I/II ≤3.

Methods: We will search the core databases [MEDLINE (through PubMed), the Cochrane Library, and Embase] from their inception to December 2018 by 2 independent evaluators. The P.I.C.O. is as follows; Patients: who have histologically proven CAG or gastric neoplasms, Intervention: sPGA with cut-off of PG I ≤70 ng/mL and/or PG I/II ≤3, Comparison: none, Outcome: diagnostic performance indices of sPGA for CAG and gastric neoplasms (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, likelihood ratios) (if, true/false positive, true/false negative values are presented, diagnostic performance indices will be calculated). All types of study design with full text will be sought and included. The risk of bias will be assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Descriptive data synthesis is planned and quantitative synthesis (bivariate and HSROC model) will be used if the included studies are sufficiently homogenous. Publication bias will be assessed.

Results: The results will provide clinical evidence for diagnostic validity of sPGA.

Conclusion: This study will provide evidence of sPGA for predicting CAG and gastric neoplasms.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. World Health Organization Fact Sheets on Cancer. Available at: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs297/en Accessed August 13, 2018.
    1. Correa P. A human model of gastric carcinogenesis. Cancer Res 1988;48:3554–60. - PubMed
    1. de Vries AC, van Grieken NC, Looman CW, et al. Gastric cancer risk in patients with premalignant gastric lesions: a nationwide cohort study in the Netherlands. Gastroenterology 2008;134:945–52. - PubMed
    1. Jencks DS, Adam JD, Borum ML, et al. Overviewof current concepts in gastric intestinal metaplasia and gastric cancer. Gastroenterol Hepatol (NY) 2018;14:92–101. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Jun JK, Choi KS, Lee HY, et al. Effectiveness of the Korean National Cancer Screening program in reducing gastric cancer mortality. Gastroenterology 2017;152:1319.e7–28.e7. - PubMed