Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18494054›Full record

SynthesisWorld journal of gastroenterology2008

Endoscopic ultrasound: it's accuracy in evaluating mediastinal lymphadenopathy? A meta-analysis and systematic review.

Srinivas-R Puli, Jyotsna Batapati Krishna Reddy, Matthew-L Bechtold, Jamal-A Ibdah, Daphne Antillon, Shailender Singh, Mojtaba Olyaee, Mainor-R Antillon

2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in World journal of gastroenterology, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 43 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT02327065 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2014, after this paper: background citation

Prospective Multi-center, Single Blinded, Randomized, Controlled Trial of EUS-FNB(Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Fine Needle Biopsy ) and EUS-FNA(Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Fine Needle Aspiration ) on Solid Occupying Lesion

TypeinterventionalSponsorHuazhong University of Science and TechnologyRan2014 to 2016Enrolled408ConditionsPancreas Neoplasms, Lymphatic Metastasis, Neoplasm Metastases, Unknown Primary Neoplasm MetastasisArmsEUS-FNA (EchoTip Ultra), EUS-FNB (EchoTip ProCore)
NCT02789371 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2016, after this paper: background citation

Comparing of Modified Wet Suction Technique and Dry Suction Technique for Endoscopic Ultrasound -Guided Fine Needle Aspiration (EUS-FNA) of Solid Occupying Lesions: a Prospective Multi-center,Randomized,and Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorBin ChengRan2016 to 2018Enrolled296ConditionsPancreas Neoplasms, Lymphatic Metastasis, Neoplasm Metastases, Unknown Primary Neoplasm MetastasisArmsthe first pass is made with 5ml suction technique, the first pass is made with modified wet suction technique
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

43 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 94 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspirationWorld journal of clinical cases · 2021
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspirationWorld journal of gastroenterology · 2021
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Srinivas-R PuliDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatollogy, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, MO 65212, USA.
Jyotsna Batapati Krishna Reddy
Matthew-L Bechtold
Jamal-A Ibdah
Daphne Antillon
Shailender Singh
Mojtaba Olyaee
Mainor-R Antillon
University of Missouri · USNebraska Medical Center · USUniversity of Kansas · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo evaluate the accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), EUS-fine needle aspiration (FNA) in evaluating mediastinal lymphadenopathy.

methodsOnly EUS and EUS-FNA studies confirmed by surgery or with appropriate follow-up were selected. Articles were searched in Medline, Pubmed, and Cochrane control trial registry. Only studies from which a 2 multiply 2 table could be constructed for true positive, false negative, false positive and true negative values were included. Two reviewers independently searched and extracted data. The differences were resolved by mutual agreement. Meta-analysis for the accuracy of EUS was analyzed by calculating pooled estimates of sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratios. Pooling was conducted by both Mantel-Haenszel method (fixed effects model) and DerSimonian Laird method (random effects model). The heterogeneity of studies was tested using Cochran's Q test based upon inverse variance weights.

resultsData was extracted from 76 studies (n = 9310) which met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 44 studies used EUS alone and 32 studies used EUS-FNA. FNA improved the sensitivity of EUS from 84.7% (95% CI: 82.9-86.4) to 88.0% (95% CI: 85.8-90.0). With FNA, the specificity of EUS improved from 84.6% (95% CI: 83.2-85.9) to 96.4% (95% CI: 95.3-97.4). The P for chi-squared heterogeneity for all the pooled accuracy estimates was > 0.10.

conclusionEUS is highly sensitive and specific for the evaluation of mediastinal lymphadenopathy and FNA substantially improves this. EUS with FNA should be the diagnostic test of choice for evaluating mediastinal lymphadenopathy.

Indexed as

EndosonographyBiasBiopsy, Fine-NeedleHumansLymphatic DiseasesMediastinal DiseasesPredictive Value of TestsReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID18494054
PMCPMC2712170
OpenAlexW2133182668

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.