Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29372460›Full record

ArticleGastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association2018

Preliminary opinion on assessment categories of stomach ultrasound report and data system (Su-RADS).

Zhining Liu, Weidong Ren, Jintao Guo, Ying Zhao, Siyu Sun, Yuhong Li, Zhijun Liu

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Zhining LiuUltrasound Department, First Affiliated Hospital of JinZhou Medical University, Jinzhou, Liaoning, People's Republic of China.
Weidong RenUltrasound Department, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, Liaoning, People's Republic of China.
Jintao GuoEndoscopy Center, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, Liaoning, People's Republic of China.
Ying ZhaoGeneral Surgical Department, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, Liaoning, People's Republic of China.
Siyu SunEndoscopy Center, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, Liaoning, People's Republic of China.
Yuhong LiUltrasound Department, First Affiliated Hospital of JinZhou Medical University, Jinzhou, Liaoning, People's Republic of China. liyuhongjinzhou@163.com.
Zhijun LiuUltrasound Department, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, Liaoning, People's Republic of China. liuzj1@sj-hospital.org.
China Medical University · CNJinzhou Medical University · CN

Funding

Liaoning Province Doctoral Fund No. 201601358Science and Technology Department of Liaoning Province No. 201602843
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTransabdominal ultrasound after oral administration of an echoic cellulose-based gastric ultrasound contrast agent (TUS-OCCA) has recently been suggested as a valuable mass-screening tool for gastric cancer. The aim of this study was to propose a producible stomach ultrasound reporting and data system (Su-RADS) using TUS-OCCA for gastric cancer screening. PATIENTS: The study includes information of 2738 patients who underwent both gastroscopy and TUS-OCCA examinations recorded in software system. Gastroscopy examination with pathological diagnosis was considered as gold standard. Various gastric lesions were classified into category 1-5 based on gastric wall thicknesses of them (especially the mucosa layer).

resultsThe total malignant ratios of patients enrolled in this study were 17.1% (469/2738). The malignant ratios for category 1-5 were, respectively, 1.1, 1.7, 12.2, 34.2 and 78.1%. Category 2 indicated mild thickening of gastric wall at low risk for malignancy (1.7%); category 3 indicated moderate thickening at moderate risk for malignancy (12.2%); category 4 indicated severe thickening at high risk for malignancy (34.2%); category 5 indicated extremely severe thickening at extremely high risk for malignancy (78.1%). If category 2 was identified as cut-off point distinguishing between benign and malignant, the sensitivity and specificity by Su-RADS are 95.1 and 78.6%, respectively.

conclusionThe Su-RADS system could inform the physicians about key findings, indicating the risk for malignancy and necessity of additional gastroscopy examination. Prospectively randomly controlled study design with larger clinical trial is needed for further investigations.

Indexed as

Administration, OralCelluloseContrast MediaGastroscopyHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedSensitivity and SpecificitySoftwareStomach NeoplasmsUltrasonographyCelluloseContrast MediaGastric cancerMass screeningOral contrast agentStomach ultrasound report and data systemTransabdominal ultrasound

Identifiers

PMID29372460
PMCPMC6097085
OpenAlexW2786497346

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.