Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22057240›Full record

SynthesisDigestive diseases and sciences2012

Levels of evidence in endoscopic ultrasonography: a systematic review.

Pietro Fusaroli, Dimitrios Kypraios, Mohamad A Eloubeidi, Giancarlo Caletti

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Quality of gastroenterology research published in Saudi Arabian scientific journals.Saudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology Association
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Pietro FusaroliDepartment of Clinical Medicine, GI Unit, University of Bologna/Hospital of Imola, Bologna, Italy. pietro.fusaroli@unibo.it
Dimitrios Kypraios
Mohamad A Eloubeidi
Giancarlo Caletti
University of Bologna · ITAmerican University of Beirut · LB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsA prolific trend currently designates endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) literature. We aimed to record all EUS-studies published during the past decade and evaluate them in terms of scientific quality, creating a stratification based on levels of evidence (LE).

methodsAll articles on EUS published between January 2001 and December 2010 were retrieved using a Pubmed and Cochrane Library search. Inclusion criteria were: original research papers (randomized controlled trials-RCTs, prospective and retrospective studies), meta-analyses, reviews and surveys pertinent to gastrointestinal EUS. Levels of evidence (LE) were assessed using the North of England evidence-based guidelines.

resultsOverall, 1,832 eligible articles were reviewed. The majority (46.1%) of reports comprised retrospective descriptive studies (LE III). Expert reviews and committee reports (LE IV) accounted for 28.9%, well-designed quasi-experimental studies (LE IIb) for 20.1%, RCTs (LE Ib) for 2.4%, prospective controlled trials (LE IIa) for 1.4%, and meta-analyses (LE Ia) for 1.1% of the total. High LE (Ia-Ib) were assigned to loco-regional staging of luminal gastrointestinal cancers; mediastinal staging of lung cancer; diagnostic work-up of solid pancreatic tumors, suspected biliary obstruction and choledocholithiasis; celiac plexus neurolysis; and pancreatic pseudocysts drainage. Intermediate to low LE (IIa-IV) were assigned to submucosal tumors, pancreatic cysts, chronic pancreatitis and novel therapeutic applications (pancreato-biliary drainage, tumor ablation).

conclusionsDiagnostic and staging EUS has matured and has proven its clinical impact on patient management. Therapeutic or interventional EUS is still evolving and more quality research and data are needed to establish EUS as the best next intervention to perform once firm evidence is available.

Indexed as

Digestive System DiseasesEndosonographyEvidence-Based MedicineGastroenterologyHumans

Identifiers

PMID22057240
OpenAlexW2034562802

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.