Trial reportMedicine2015
Value of Magnifying Endoscopy With Narrow-Band Imaging and Confocal Laser Endomicroscopy in Detecting Gastric Cancerous Lesions.
Trial report in Medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Diagnostic performance of confocal laser endomicroscopy for optical diagnosis of gastric intestinal metaplasia: a meta-analysis.BMC gastroenterology · 2016Pooled it
- Confocal laser endomicroscopy for upper gastrointestinal neoplasia: Systematic review and meta-analysis.Endoscopy international open · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence-based real-time histopathology of gastric cancer using confocal laser endomicroscopy.NPJ precision oncology · 2024Article
- Efficacy of magnifying endoscopy combined with narrowband imaging in detection of early gastric cancer: a systematic evaluation and meta-analysis.American journal of translational research · 2024Review
- Role of Confocal Laser Endomicroscopy in Early Detection of Upper Gastrointestinal Malignancy in High Risk Patients.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2023Article
- Review
- 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
- SAGES TAVAC safety and efficacy analysis confocal laser endomicroscopy.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Review
- Optical biopsy in gastroenterology: Focus on confocal laser endomicroscopy.Indian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology · 2019Article
- Therapeutic Outcomes of Endoscopic Resection of Early Gastric Cancer with Undifferentiated-Type Histology: A Korean ESD Registry Database Analysis.Clinical endoscopy · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although the respective potentials of magnifying endoscopy with narrow-band imaging (ME-NBI) and confocal laser endomicroscopy (CLE) in predicting gastric cancer has been well documented, there is a lack of studies in comparing the value and diagnostic strategy of these 2 modalities. Our primary aim is to investigate whether CLE is superior to ME-NBI for differentiation between gastric cancerous and noncancerous lesions. A secondary aim is to propose an applicable clinical strategy.We conducted a diagnostic accuracy study involving patients with suspected gastric superficial cancerous lesions. White light endoscopy, ME-NBI, and CLE were performed diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value between ME-NBI and CLE were assessed, as well as agreements between ME-NBI/CLE and histopathology.This study involved 86 gastric lesions in 82 consecutive patients who underwent white light endoscopy, ME-NBI, and CLE before biopsy. The accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity for ME-NBI were 93.75%, 91.67%, and 95.45%, compared with 91.86%, 90%, and 93.48%, respectively, for CLE, for discrimination cancerous/noncancerous lesion (all P > 0.05). For undifferentiated/differentiated adenocarcinoma, CLE had a numerically but not statistically significantly higher accuracy than ME-NBI (81.25% vs 73.33%, P = 0.46). Agreements between ME-NBI/CLE and histopathology were near perfect (ME-NBI, κ = 0.87; CLE, κ = 0.84).CLE is not superior to ME-NBI for discriminating gastric cancerous from noncancerous lesions. Endoscopist could make an optimal choice according to the specific indication and advantages of ME-NBI and CLE in daily practices.
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.