Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25920526›Full record

SynthesisGastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association2016

Comparison of the diagnostic efficacy of white light endoscopy and magnifying endoscopy with narrow band imaging for early gastric cancer: a meta-analysis.

Qiang Zhang, Fei Wang, Zhen-Yu Chen, Zhen Wang, Fa-Chao Zhi, Si-De Liu, Yang Bai

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

53 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 115 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Quality indicators for upper GI endoscopy.Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2025
    Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Guideline
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Quality Indicators for Upper GI Endoscopy.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Qiang ZhangDepartment of Gastroenterology, Nanfang Hospital, Southen Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China. 4024313@qq.com.
Fei WangDepartment of Gastroenterology, Nanfang Hospital, Southen Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Zhen-Yu ChenDepartment of Gastroenterology, Nanfang Hospital, Southen Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Zhen WangDepartment of Gastroenterology, Nanfang Hospital, Southen Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Fa-Chao ZhiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Nanfang Hospital, Southen Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Si-De LiuDepartment of Gastroenterology, Nanfang Hospital, Southen Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Yang BaiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Nanfang Hospital, Southen Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Nanfang Hospital · CNChelyabinsk State Medical Academy · RU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveMagnifying endoscopy with narrow band imaging (ME-NBI) is widely used in gastroscopy, especially in the diagnosis of early gastric cancer. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the diagnostic efficacy of white light imaging (WLI) and that of ME-NBI for early gastric cancer.

methodsPubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify studies which met the inclusion criteria. A random-effects model was used to calculate overall sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) to assess the diagnostic efficacy of WLI and ME-NBI in early gastric cancer. Sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the stability of the results.

resultsTen studies met the inclusion criteria, and included 1724 patients and 2153 lesions. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and AUC for the diagnosis of early gastric cancer using WLI were 0.48 [95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.39-0.57; I (2) = 78.6 %], 0.67 (95 % CI 0.62-0.71; I (2) = 81.9 %), and 0.62, respectively. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and AUC using ME-NBI were 0.83 (95 % CI 0.79-0.87; I (2) = 79.8 %), 0.96 (95 % CI 0.95-0.97; I (2) = 89.3 %), and 0.96, respectively. The studies showed a high degree of heterogeneity. Further sensitivity analysis was mainly performed for the studies of small lesions (mean size 10 mm or less) and the studies with a the score of 12 points or greater in the literature quality assessment, and the AUCs for ME-NBI for diagnosis of early gastric cancer were between 0.93 and 0.98, which suggested that the diagnostic value was still high and stable.

conclusionCompared with WLI, ME-NBI can effectively diagnose early gastric cancer.

Indexed as

Area Under CurveEarly Detection of CancerGastroscopyHumansNarrow Band ImagingSensitivity and SpecificityStomach NeoplasmsGastric cancerMagnifying endoscopyNarrow band imagingWhite light endoscopy

Identifiers

PMID25920526
OpenAlexW2082998411

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.