Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24891188›Full record

SynthesisTumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine2014

Comparison of ERCP, EUS, and ERCP combined with EUS in diagnosing pancreatic neoplasms: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Hongyu Li, Zhigang Hu, Jiang Chen, Xiaozhong Guo

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Tumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Imaging in pancreatic disease.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2017
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Endoscopic retrograde pancreatography: When should we do it?World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2015
    Review
  11. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Hongyu LiDepartment of Gastroenterology, General Hospital of Shenyang Military Area, Shenyang, 110840, People's Republic of China.
Zhigang Hu
Jiang Chen
Xiaozhong Guo
General Hospital of Shenyang Military Region · CNChina Three Gorges University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the current study, we performed a systematic review of literature pertaining to the diagnostic value of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), and combined ERCP plus EUS to pancreatic cancer. We searched MEDLINE, OVID, and the Cochrane Library for studies evaluating diagnostic validity of ERCP, EUS, and ERCP plus EUS between January 1989 and May 2014. We obtained pooled estimates of sensitivity, specificity, and summary receiver operating characteristic curves (SROC). A total of 10 studies that included 669 patients who fulfilled all of the inclusion criteria were considered for inclusion in the analysis. The pooled sensitivities of EUS, ERCP, and EUS plus ERCP were 76.7, 57.9, and 79.9 %, respectively. The pooled specificities were 91.7, 90.6, and 94.2 %, respectively. The *Q index estimates were 0.828, 0.862, and 0.896, respectively. The *Q indices for EUS and EUS plus ERCP were significantly higher compared with ERCP (P = 0.010 and 0.008, respectively). Our meta-analysis showed that ERCP plus EUS was associated with a high diagnostic value for the detection of pancreatic neoplasms compared with ERCP and EUS alone.

Indexed as

Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic RetrogradeEndosonographyHumansPancreatic NeoplasmsReproducibility of ResultsROC Curve

Identifiers

PMID24891188
OpenAlexW2093791788

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.