ArticleEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2013
Comparison of narrow-band imaging and conventional nasopharyngoscopy for the screening of unaffected members of families with nasopharyngeal carcinoma.
Article in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- A novel serum protein biomarker for the late-stage diagnosis of nasopharyngeal carcinoma.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- The diagnostic value of image-enhanced endoscopy system in sinonasal inverted papilloma.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Familial aggregation of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) has been widely reported. The excess risk is about 4-8-fold among first-degree relatives of NPC patients compared with those without a family history of the disease. We used nasopharyngoscopy and a narrow-band image system (NBI) to screen NPC high-risk patients and identify a good tool for the early detection of NPC in these high-risk groups. We recruited all available, affected blood relations of the patients. When NPC patients were more distant relatives, such as cousins, we recruited their shared second-degree relatives, such as unaffected aunts and uncles, to genetically connect the NPC cases. We performed transnasal endoscopy, first in white-light mode, then under the NBI system. There were two NBI patterns in NPC: microvascular proliferation and engorged blood vessels. The NBI pattern in normal nasopharyngeal mucosa was a regular cobblestone pattern. A prospective study included 211 asymptomatic members from 154 NPC families. We found four cases of NPC, all with a tumor stage of T1. In one patient (1/4), MRI revealed a 2-cm-diameter neck lymphadenopathy (N1). The correlation between conventional nasopharyngoscopy and NBI was very high (κ = 0.798, P = 0.000). In conclusions, NBI is not superior to conventional nasopharyngoscopy for the early detection of NPC in unaffected members of families with NPC history. The long-term follow-up is necessary in high-risk NPC patients. Further studies will be needed to determine which screening tool-conventional nasopharyngoscopy, NBI, or EB virus titer-is most effective.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.