Table 2

Comparison of baseline EGD characteristics and early GC detection rates between the low-detection group except the lowest detector and high-detection group

Low (except the lowest)HighP value
Characteristics of routine EGDs (n, (%))
Total14 1707743
Sex, m (n, (%))7843 (55.3)4265 (55.1)0.70
Mean age (range)64.3 (16–99)64.3 (17–98)0.85
AtrophyClosed (n, (%))3188 (22.5)1552 (20.0)<0.01
Open (n, (%))4935 (34.8)2551 (32.9)<0.01
Postgastric ER (n, (%))700 (4.94)342 (4.42)0.08
Detected GCs (n, (%))
Total70 (0.49)64 (0.83)<0.01
Tumour size (mm)≤5Embedded Image13 (0.092)Embedded Image15 (0.19)Embedded Image<0.05Embedded Image
6–1015 (0.106)18 (0.23)<0.05
≥1142 (0.30)31 (0.40)0.20
  • Since the endoscopists with the highest and lowest detection rates (2.87% and 0.09%) were so far removed from the detection rates of the other endoscopists, we excluded those data as outliers from this comparative analysis. Therefore, endoscopists were assigned to the low-detection group after exclusion of the lowest detector (n=5; detection rate: 0.19%–0.55%) and the high-detection group (n=5; detection rate: 0.63%–1.12%) for statistical comparative analysis.

  • EGD, esophagogastroduodenoscopy; ER, endoscopic resection; GC, gastric cancer.