Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28621291›Full record

ArticleEndoscopic ultrasound

Role of endoscopic ultrasound and endoscopic-ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in endoscopic biopsy negative gastrointestinal lesions.

Hussein Hassan Okasha, Mohamed Naguib, Mohamed El Nady, Reem Ezzat, Emad Al-Gemeie, Waleed Al-Nabawy, Wael Aref, Ahmed Abdel-Moaty, Karim Essam, Ahmed Hamdy

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Endoscopic ultrasound. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Multiple metabolic parameters and visual assessment ofAbdominal radiology (New York) · 2020
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Hussein Hassan OkashaDepartment of Internal Medicine and Gastroenterology, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
Mohamed NaguibDepartment of Internal Medicine and Gastroenterology, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
Mohamed El NadyDepartment of Internal Medicine and Gastroenterology, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
Reem EzzatDepartment of Internal Medicine, Assiut University, Assiut, Egypt.
Emad Al-GemeieDepartment of Pathology, National Cancer Institute (NCI), Cairo, Egypt.
Waleed Al-NabawyDepartment of Internal Medicine, Beni-Suef University, Beni-Suef, Egypt.
Wael ArefDepartment of Internal Medicine and Gastroenterology, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
Ahmed Abdel-MoatyDepartment of Internal Medicine and Gastroenterology, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
Karim EssamDepartment of Internal Medicine and Gastroenterology, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
Ahmed HamdyDepartment of Internal Medicine and Gastroenterology, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
Cairo University · EGAssiut University · EG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectivesMany cases of gastrointestinal (GI) tumors as lymphoma, adenocarcinoma, and most of submucosal tumors (SMT) such as gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) and leiomyoma are difficult to diagnose as they frequently yield negative endoscopic biopsies. We evaluated the accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in the diagnosis of endoscopic biopsy negative GI tumors. PATIENTS AND

methodsOne hundred and nine patients with biopsy negative GI tumors were included in this prospective study. EUS and EUS-FNA were performed to all patients with cytopathologic examination.

resultsThere were 109 patients with endoscopic biopsy negative GI lesions, including 61 males (56%) and 48 females (44%), with the mean age of 54 years. Sixty-three cases (57.8%) were proved to have malignant lesions, among them there were 15 cases with high-risk GIST as proved by FNA and excision biopsy. Forty-six cases (42.2%) were proved to be benign; among them there were 21 cases presented with non-high-risk GIST. Endoscopic ultrasound had a sensitivity of 96.8%, specificity of 89.1%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 92.4%, negative predictive value (NPV) of 95.3%, and accuracy of 93.6%. EUS-FNA had a sensitivity of 87.3%, specificity of 100%, PPV of 100%, NPV of 85.2%, and accuracy of 92.7%.

conclusionEUS with EUS-FNA is an accurate procedure in the diagnosis of GI tumors with negative endoscopic biopsies.

Identifiers

PMID28621291
PMCPMC5488517
OpenAlexW2594606077

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.