SynthesisPloS one2015
Diagnostic efficacy of magnifying endoscopy with narrow-band imaging for gastric neoplasms: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endoscopic Resection of Malignancies in the Upper GI Tract: A Clinical Algorithm.Visceral medicine · 2024Review
- Toward next-generation endoscopes integrating biomimetic video systems, nonlinear optical microscopy, and deep learning.Biophysics reviews · 2023Review
- Systematic Review on Optical Diagnosis of Early Gastrointestinal Neoplasia.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Review
- Convolutional neural network for the diagnosis of early gastric cancer based on magnifying narrow band imaging.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2020Article
- Narrow-Band Imaging: Clinical Application in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.GE Portuguese journal of gastroenterology · 2018Review
- Evidence based review of the impact of image enhanced endoscopy in the diagnosis of gastric disorders.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMagnifying endoscopy with narrow-band imaging (ME-NBI) is a novel, image-enhanced endoscopic technique for differentiating gastrointestinal neoplasms and potentially enabling pathological diagnosis.
objectivesThe aim of this analysis was to assess the diagnostic performance of ME-NBI for gastric neoplasms.
methodsWe performed a systematic search of the PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases for relevant studies. Meta-DiSc (version 1.4) and STATA (version 11.0) software were used for the data analysis. Random effects models were used to assess diagnostic efficacy. Heterogeneity was tested by the Q statistic and I2 statistic. Meta-regression was used to analyze the sources of heterogeneity.
resultsA total of 10 studies, with 2151 lesions, were included. The pooled characteristics of these studies were as follows: sensitivity 0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.81-0.89), specificity 0.96 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.95-0.97), and area under the curve (AUC) 0.9647. In the subgroup analysis, which compared the diagnostic efficacy of ME-NBI and white light imaging (WLI), the pooled sensitivity and specificity of ME-NBI were 0.87 (95% CI: 0.80-0.92) and 0.93 (95% CI: 0.90-0.95), respectively, and the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.9556. In contrast, the pooled sensitivity and specificity of WLI were 0.61 (95% CI: 0.53-0.69) and 0.65 (95% CI: 0.60-0.69), respectively, and the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.6772.
conclusionsME-NBI presents a high diagnostic value for gastric neoplasms and has a 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.