ArticleScientific reports2016
Oesophageal carcinoma: comparison of ex vivo high-resolution 3.0 T MR imaging with histopathological findings.
Article in Scientific reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ex vivo study of Porcine esophagus magnetic resonance imaging with a compact endoluminal coil.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Advancing Esophageal Cancer Staging and Restaging: The Role of MRI in Precision Diagnosis.Cancers · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
High-resolution magnetic resonance (MR) images clearly depict the normal oesophageal wall as consisting of eight layers, which correlates well with histopathological findings. In 56 (91.8%) of 61 lesions, the depth of oesophageal wall invasion determined through MR imaging was consistent with histopathological staging (r = 0.975, P < 0.001). The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy for the mucosa were 71.4%, 98.1%, and 95.1%, respectively, and the corresponding values for the submucosa were 82.4%, 95.5%, and 91.8%; for the muscularis propria, the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were 100%, 95.7%, and 96.7%, respectively, and for the adventitia, these values were 100%, 100%, and 100%. The Cohen k values for interobserver agreement were excellent: K = 0.839, P < 0.001 (observer 1 vs. observer 2); K = 0.908, P < 0.001 (observer 1 vs. observer 3); and K = 0.885, P < 0.01 (observer 2 vs. observer 3). High-resolution ex vivo MR images obtained with a 3.0 T scanner can be used to precisely evaluate oesophageal carcinoma invasion and provide good diagnostic sensitivity, specificity and accuracy.
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.