SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2017
Comparison of endoscopic ultrasonography and magnifying endoscopy for assessment of the invasion depth of shallow gastrointestinal neoplasms: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2017. 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.
- Comparison of clinical and pathological characteristics between early gastric cardiac cancer and early gastric non-cardiac cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Management of complex polyps of the colon and rectum.International journal of colorectal disease · 2018Review
- Controversies in EUS: Do we need miniprobes?Endoscopic ultrasoundArticle
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.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo conduct a meta-analysis to provide accurate evidence regarding the preferred diagnostic method, magnifying endoscopy (ME) or endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), for assessment of the depth of invasion of the gastrointestinal neoplasms.
methodsPubMed, EMBASE, Ovid Medline, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies published between January 1946 and October 2016, regarding the use of EUS and ME to assess the invasion depth of gastrointestinal cancers. The quality of diagnostic studies was evaluated using the QUADAS2 instrument. The Meta-DiSc software (version 1.4) was used for meta-analysis of the pooled data regarding the diagnostic accuracy of EUS and ME of the invasion depth of gastrointestinal neoplasms.
resultsOur meta-analysis included the data of 754 patients with gastrointestinal cancers contributed by seven prospective studies. All studies were of high quality (QUADAS2). The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) planes were not observed in shoulder and arm forms for either EUS or ME, with Spearman's correlation coefficients of -0.821 and 0.234 for EUS and ME, respectively. The p values of the diagnostic odds ratio for EUS and ME were 0.0038 and 0.0131, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of EUS for the diagnosis of the depth of invasion of gastrointestinal cancers were 0.75 (95% CI 0.69-0.81) and 0.84 (95% CI 0.79-0.88), respectively. In comparison, the sensitivity and specificity for ME were 0.74 (95% CI 0.67-0.69) and 0.85 (95% CI 0.80-0.89), respectively. The values of area under the summary ROC (SROC) curves for EUS and ME were 0.8499 and 0.8757, respectively, with a non-significant Z value between EUS and MR (0.296 < 1.96).
conclusionsBoth EUS and ME provide a comparable performance for judging the depth of invasion of gastrointestinal neoplasms. However, there is heterogeneity between studies contributed by non-threshold effects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28547665What 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.