Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29270799›Full record

Observational studySurgical endoscopy2018

Endorectal ultrasound in the identification of rectal tumors for transanal endoscopic surgery: factors influencing its accuracy.

Xavier Serra-Aracil, Ana Gálvez, Laura Mora-López, Pere Rebasa, Sheila Serra-Pla, Anna Pallisera-Lloveras, Carla Zerpa, Oriol Moreno, Salvador Navarro-Soto

Abstract readObservational Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in Surgical endoscopy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Importance of Resection Margins in the Treatment of Rectal Adenomas by Transanal Endoscopic Surgery.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2019
    Article
  12. Observational
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

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Xavier Serra-AracilColoproctology Unit, General and Digestive Surgery Service, Parc Tauli University Hospital, Sabadell, Spain.
Ana GálvezColoproctology Unit, General and Digestive Surgery Service, Parc Tauli University Hospital, Sabadell, Spain. anagalvezs@gmail.com.
Laura Mora-LópezColoproctology Unit, General and Digestive Surgery Service, Parc Tauli University Hospital, Sabadell, Spain.
Pere RebasaColoproctology Unit, General and Digestive Surgery Service, Parc Tauli University Hospital, Sabadell, Spain.
Sheila Serra-PlaColoproctology Unit, General and Digestive Surgery Service, Parc Tauli University Hospital, Sabadell, Spain.
Anna Pallisera-LloverasColoproctology Unit, General and Digestive Surgery Service, Parc Tauli University Hospital, Sabadell, Spain.
Carla ZerpaColoproctology Unit, General and Digestive Surgery Service, Parc Tauli University Hospital, Sabadell, Spain.
Oriol MorenoColoproctology Unit, General and Digestive Surgery Service, Parc Tauli University Hospital, Sabadell, Spain.
Salvador Navarro-SotoColoproctology Unit, General and Digestive Surgery Service, Parc Tauli University Hospital, Sabadell, Spain.
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Endorectal ultrasound (ERUS) is considered the technique of choice for selecting patients for transanal endoscopic surgery (TEM). The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of ERUS in patients with rectal tumors who later underwent TEM, and to analyze the factors that influence this accuracy. Observational study including prospective data collection of patients with rectal tumors undergoing TEM with curative intent between June 2004 and May 2016. Preoperative staging by EUS (uT) was correlated with the pathology results after TEM (pT). The accuracy of the EUS was evaluated and a series of variables (tumor morphology, height, lesion size, quadrant, definitive pathology, the surgeon assessing the ERUS, and waiting time from the date of the ERUS until surgery) were analyzed as possible predictors of diagnostic accuracy. Six hundred and fifty-one patients underwent TEM, of whom 495 met the inclusion criteria. The overall accuracy of EUS was 78%, sensitivity 83.78%, specificity 20%, PPV 91.3%, and NPV 11%. Forty patients (8.08%) were understaged and 50 (10.9%) were overstaged. In the multivariate analysis, the surgeon's experience emerged as the most important predictor of accuracy (p < 0.001; OR 2.75, 95% CI 1.681-4.512). The EUS was less accurate with larger lesions (p = 0.004; OR 0.219, 95% CI 0.137-0.349) and when the definitive diagnosis was adenocarcinoma (p < 0.001; OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.746-0.946). ERUS accuracy rates are variable and there is a possibility of understaging and overstaging that must be taken into consideration. This accuracy is dependent on the operator's experience as well on lesion size; in addition, it is lower for lesions shown to be cancers in the final pathology report.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaAgedEndosonographyFemaleHumansMaleNeoplasm StagingPatient SelectionProspective StudiesRectal NeoplasmsRectumReproducibility of ResultsTransanal Endoscopic SurgeryAccuracyEndorectal ultrasoundRectal tumorsTransanal endoscopic surgery

Identifiers

PMID29270799
OpenAlexW2779901820

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.