SynthesisPloS one2014
Meta-analysis: narrow band imaging for diagnosis of gastric intestinal metaplasia.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic performance of confocal laser endomicroscopy for optical diagnosis of gastric intestinal metaplasia: a meta-analysis.BMC gastroenterology · 2016Pooled it
- Identifying the pre-malignant stomach: from guidelines to practice.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2022Review
- Hesitate between confocal laser endomicroscopy and narrow-band imaging: how to choose a better method in the detection of focal precancerous state of gastric cancer.American journal of translational research · 2022Review
- Endoscopic diagnosis and treatment of gastric dysplasia and early cancer: Current evidence and what the future may hold.World journal of gastroenterology · 2021Review
- Clinical applicability of gastroscopy with narrow-band imaging for the diagnosis ofWorld journal of clinical cases · 2020Review
- Diagnosis of early gastric cancer using image enhanced endoscopy: a systematic approach.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2020Review
- [Application of probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy in diagnosis of gastric carcinoma and precancerous lesions].Zhejiang da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Zhejiang University. Medical sciences · 2019Article
- Narrow-Band Imaging: Clinical Application in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.GE Portuguese journal of gastroenterology · 2018Review
- Ability of blue laser imaging with magnifying endoscopy for the diagnosis of gastric intestinal metaplasia.Lasers in medical science · 2018Article
- A guide to multimodal endoscopy imaging for gastrointestinal malignancy - an early indicator.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2017Review
- Current role of narrow band imaging in diagnosing gastric intestinal metaplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of its diagnostic accuracy.Annals of gastroenterologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDistinguishing early gastric cancer is challenging with current imaging techniques. Narrow band imaging (NBI) is effective for characterizing gastric lesions.
objectivesThe aim of this meta-analysis was to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of NBI in the gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM).
methodsWe performed data analysis using Meta-DiSc (version 1.4) and STATA (version 11.0) software. To assess study quality and potential for bias, we used the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool.
resultsSix studies involving 347 patients were included. On a per-patient basis, the sensitivity of NBI for diagnosis of GIM was 0.65 (95% CI = 0.56-0.74), and the specificity was 0.93 (95% CI = 0.88-0.97). The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve was 0.8731. However, on a per-lesion basis, the sensitivity and specificity of NBI were 0.69 (95% CI = 0.63-0.74) and 0.91 (95% CI = 0.87-0.94), respectively. The SROC was 0.9009. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of magnification endoscopy (NBI-ME) were 0.76 (95% CI = 0.61-0.87) and 0.89 (95% CI = 0.80-0.94), respectively, on per-patient analysis. On a per-lesion basis, the pooled sensitivity and specificity of NBI-ME were 0.84 (95% CI = 0.76-0.89) and 0.93 (95% CI = 0.89-0.96), respectively. Heterogeneity was observed with an I2 for diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of 0.01% and 85.8%, respectively. There was no statistical significance for the evaluation of publication bias.
conclusionsOur meta-analysis shows that NBI is a useful tool for differential diagnosis of GIM with relatively low sensitivity and high specificity.
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.