SynthesisSaudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology Association
Comparison of diagnostic efficacy between AFI, NBI, and AFI combined with NBI for colonic cancers: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Saudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology Association. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- The optimization and application of photodynamic diagnosis and autofluorescence imaging in tumor diagnosis and guided surgery: current status and future prospects.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Review
- Mucosal imaging in colon polyps: New advances and what the future may hold.World journal of gastroenterology · 2022Review
- Efficacy of image enhanced endoscopy for colorectal polyps: Are we ready for prime time?Saudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology AssociationArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsAdvanced endoscopic imaging technologies have been used for the early detection and differentiation of colonic cancers recently. We aim to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of autofluorescence imaging (AFI), narrow-band imaging (NBI), and AFI combined with NBI for colonic cancers. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe searched Medline/PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases for relevant articles. A random-effects model was used to assess diagnostic efficacy. Heterogeneity was tested by the I2 statistic and Chi-square test. Meta-regression was used to analyze the sources of heterogeneity.
resultsThe pooled sensitivities for AFI, NBI, and AFI plus NBI were 0.84 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82-0.87), 0.84 (95% CI 0.81-0.86), and 0.93 (95% CI 0.90-0.95), respectively. The pooled specificities were 0.44 (95% CI 0.40-0.48), 0.69 (95% CI 0.65-0.72), and 0.69 (95% CI 0.64-0.74), respectively. The sensitivity estimate was significantly higher for AFI plus NBI than AFI or NBI alone (P = 0.041), and the specificity estimates were significantly higher for NBI and AFI plus NBI than AFI (P = 0.031).The pooled diagnostic odds ratio for AFI, NBI, and AFI plus NBI were 8.71 (95% CI 2.90-26.16), 16.02 (95% CI 7.05-36.39), and 57.55 (95% CI 9.82-337.33), respectively. Furthermore, the summary receiver operating characteristic curve area under the curve for AFI, NBI, and AFI plus NBI were 0.8125 with Q* =0.7469, 0.8696 with Q* =0.8001, and 0.9447 with Q* =0.8835, respectively. The Q* index for AFI plus NBI was significantly higher than AFI or NBI alone (P = 0.048).
conclusionThe combination of AFI and NBI was associated with increased diagnostic value for colonic cancers compared with AFI and NBI alone.
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.