Evaluating the Reporting Transparency and Interpretability of OLGA and OLGIM Staging in Gastric Cancer Risk...

Area of Science:

• Gastroenterology and Hepatology
• Oncology
• Pathology

Background:

• The Operative Link for Gastritis Assessment (OLGA) and Operative Link for Intestinal Metaplasia (OLGIM) are utilized for gastric cancer risk stratification.
• Published studies often lack clarity in reporting the implementation of these staging systems.
• This variability impacts the reliability and comparability of research findings.

Purpose of the Study:

• To assess the interpretability of reporting for OLGA/OLGIM implementation in published studies.
• Focus on reporting transparency rather than methodological quality or guideline adherence.

Main Methods:

• Systematic literature search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL up to March 2026.
• Included studies applying OLGA and/or OLGIM with reported staging results.
• Reporting interpretability appraised using a framework assessing biopsy sampling, histological assessment, grading, and stage derivation.

Main Results:

• 155 studies were included; 48.4% showed high reporting interpretability, 46.5% moderate, and 5.2% low.
• Key details for understanding stage generation, including biopsy sampling, grading approach, and stage derivation, were frequently incomplete.
• Incomplete reporting limited the interpretability, reproducibility, and comparability of OLGA/OLGIM evidence.

Conclusions:

• Significant variability exists in the implementation reporting of OLGA and OLGIM.
• Limited interpretability often stems from incomplete reporting, not necessarily flawed methods.
• Enhanced transparency in reporting is crucial for improving reproducibility, cross-study comparison, and clinical translation of gastric cancer risk stratification.