Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24916170›Full record

SynthesisJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2014

Diagnostic accuracy of EUS and CT of vascular invasion in pancreatic cancer: a systematic review.

RenBao Yang, ManPeng Lu, XiaoXing Qian, Jiong Chen, Liang Li, JiaWen Wang, YouQian Zhang

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Diagnostic value of endoscopic ultrasound in staging of pancreatic cancer.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors.

RenBao YangDepartment of General Surgery, Anhui Medical University Affiliated HeFei Hospital, Hefei Second People's Hospital, Hefei, 230011, China, yangrenbao20@163.com.
ManPeng Lu
XiaoXing Qian
Jiong Chen
Liang Li
JiaWen Wang
YouQian Zhang

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe objective of this study was to summarize the accuracy of preoperative vascular invasion with endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and computed tomography (CT) test performance in pancreatic cancer with meta-analysis

methodTwo reviewers searched MEDLINE database to identify relevant studies. The reference lists of the trials were manually searched. Included studies used surgical and/or histological findings as the "gold standard," and provided sufficient data to construct a diagnostic 2 × 2 table. A statistical program of Meta-Disc was used to calculate the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive LR, negative LR, DOR, and the SROC curve. Publication bias was assessed by Deeks' asymmetry test. Sensitivity analysis and subgroup analysis were calculated to down the heterogeneity. Meta-regression was calculated to evaluate potential sources of heterogeneity

resultA total of 30 studies with 1,554 patients were included for the analysis, nine of these studies compared EUS with CT to assess the diagnostic efficiency The pooled sensitivity of EUS and CT was 72 % (95 % CI 67-77 %) and 63 % (95 % CI 58-67 %), and the pooled specificity of EUS and CT was 89 % (95 % CI 86-92 %) and 92 % (95 % CI 90-94 %), respectively. The positive LR of EUS and CT was 5.14 (95 % CI 3.14-8.40) and 6.21 (95 % CI 3.96-9.71), and the negative LR was 0.36 (95 % CI 0.25-0.52) and 0.41 (95 % CI 0.31-0.55), respectively. The AUCs of EUS and CT were 0.9037 and 0.8948. The subgroup analysis of nine studies performed both EUS and CT showed CT scan with a lower sensitivity of 48 % (95 % CI 0.40-0.56), when compared to EUS of 69 % (95 % CI 0.61-0.77). The overall AUCs of CT scan appear to be lower (AUCs = 0.8589), compared with EUS (AUCs = 0.9379)

conclusionEUS performed better than CT in differentiating vascular invasion preoperative on pancreatic cancer. EUS could provide other additional information when compared with CT.

Indexed as

Area Under CurveEndosonographyHumansNeoplasm InvasivenessNeovascularization, PathologicPancreatic NeoplasmsTomography, X-Ray Computed

Identifiers

PMID24916170
PMCPMC11823513

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.