ArticleMedicine2016
Retrospective study: The diagnostic accuracy of conventional forceps biopsy of gastric epithelial compared to endoscopic submucosal dissection (STROBE compliant).
Article in Medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of real-time artificial intelligence integration on detection of gastric lesions: an exploratory single-center before-and-after study using low-definition routine endoscopy.Clinical endoscopy · 2026Article
- [Pathological evaluation of endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer and precancerous lesion in 411 cases].Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 2023Article
- Comparative analysis of differences between preoperative endoscopic biopsy and postoperative pathological examination for diagnosis of gastric intraepithelial neoplasia.The Journal of international medical research · 2021Article
- The Diagnostic Accuracy of Conventional Forceps Biopsy Compared to ESD.Open medicine (Warsaw, Poland) · 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
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Conventional forceps biopsy (CFB) is the most popular way to screen for gastric epithelial neoplasia (GEN) and adenocarcinoma of gastric epithelium. The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy between conventional forceps biopsy and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD).Four hundred forty-four patients who finally undertook ESD in our hospital were enrolled from Jan 1, 2009 to Sep 1, 2015. We retrospectively assessed the characteristics of pathological results of CFB and ESD.The concordance rate between CFB and ESD specimens was 68.92% (306/444). Men showed a lower concordance rate (63.61% vs 79.33%; P = 0.001) and concordance patients were younger (P = 0.048). In multivariate analysis, men significantly had a lower concordance rate (coefficient -0.730, P = 0.002) and a higher rate of pathological upgrade (coefficient -0.648, P = 0.015). Locations of CFB did not influence the concordance rate statistically.The concordance rate was relatively high in our hospital. According to our analysis, old men plus gastric fundus or antrum of CFB were strongly suggested to perform ESD if precancerous lesions were found. And young women with low-grade intraepithelial neoplasia could select regular follow-up.
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.