No clinical studies (i.e., clinical trials, case series, or case reports) have been reported in peer-reviewed scientific journals to support the safety or the efficacy of 714-X. A number of anecdotal reports and testimonials have been published in newspapers and other nonmedical literature. The producers of 714-X state that they have tried to document the long-term experience of patients treated with this compound, but they have encountered difficulty in obtaining information from patients and their...
External Validity: Poor. Studies on populations in high-risk areas may not be applicable to low-risk areas such as the United States.
Based on solid evidence, screening would result in uncommon but serious side effects associated with endoscopy, which may include perforation, cardiopulmonary events, aspiration pneumonia, and bleeding requiring hospitalization.
False-positive tests are also common in association with serum pepsinogen or gastric photofluorography.
Magnitude of Effect: Good evidence for rare but serious harms.
Description of the Evidence
Study Design: Evidence obtained from screening programs and from case series.
Internal Validity: Fair.
Consistency: Inadequate evidence.
External Validity: Poor.
Leung WK, Wu MS, Kakugawa Y, et al.: Screening for gastric cancer in Asia: current evidence and practice. Lancet Oncol 9 (3): 279-87, 2008.