SynthesisWorld journal of gastroenterology2018
Colonic lesion characterization in inflammatory bowel disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in World journal of gastroenterology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- New Technologies for IBD Endoscopy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Confocal Laser Endomicroscopy: Real-Time Histology at the Fingertips: A Comprehensive Review of Current Applications of Endomicroscopy in Barrett Esophagus, Inflammatory Bowel Disease, and Colorectal Lesions.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Real-time microscopic visualisation: current applications and challenges of confocal laser endomicroscopy in the diagnosis and treatment of small bowel disorders.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2026Review
- Probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy: progress, challenges, and emerging applications.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Review
- Clear Cell Renal Carcinoma in an Ulcerative Colitis Patient Under Short-Term Immunosuppressive Therapy: A Case Report.Clinics and practice · 2025Article
- Gastrointestinal endoscopy for intestinal dysplasia and neoplasia detection and management in Crohn's disease: when and how?Frontiers in gastroenterology (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Diagnostic Procedures for Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Laboratory, Endoscopy, Pathology, Imaging, and Beyond.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Indigo Carmine: Between Necessity and Concern.Journal of xenobiotics · 2023Review
- Next-Generation Endoscopy in Inflammatory Bowel Disease.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- New Technologies in Digestive Endoscopy for Ulcerative Colitis Patients.Biomedicines · 2023Review
- Colorectal Cancer in Ulcerative Colitis: Mechanisms, Surveillance and Chemoprevention.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022Review
- SAGES TAVAC safety and efficacy analysis confocal laser endomicroscopy.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Review
- Endoscopic Management of Complex Lesions in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease.Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2021Article
- Article
- Innovative Diagnostic Endoscopy in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: From High-Definition to Molecular Endoscopy.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Review
- Colorectal carcinogenesis: Insights into the cell death and signal transduction pathways: A review.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo perform a systematic review and meta-analysis for the diagnostic accuracy of
methodsWe searched Medline, Embase and the Cochrane library. We performed a bivariate meta-analysis to calculate the pooled estimate sensitivities, specificities, positive and negative likelihood ratios (+LHR, -LHR), diagnostic odds ratios (DOR), and area under the SROC curve (AUSROC) for each technology group. A subgroup analysis was performed to investigate differences in real-time non-magnified Kudo pit patterns (with VCE and DBC) and real-time CLE.
resultsWe included 22 studies [1491 patients; 4674 polyps, of which 539 (11.5%) were neoplastic]. Real-time CLE had a pooled sensitivity of 91% (95%CI: 66%-98%), specificity of 97% (95%CI: 94%-98%), and an AUSROC of 0.98 (95%CI: 0.97-0.99). Magnification endoscopy had a pooled sensitivity of 90% (95%CI: 77%-96%) and specificity of 87% (95%CI: 81%-91%). VCE had a pooled sensitivity of 86% (95%CI: 62%-95%) and specificity of 87% (95%CI: 72%-95%). DBC had a pooled sensitivity of 67% (95%CI: 44%-84%) and specificity of 86% (95%CI: 72%-94%).
conclusionReal-time CLE is a highly accurate technology for differentiating neoplastic from non-neoplastic lesions in patients with colonic IBD. However, most CLE studies were performed by single expert users within tertiary centres, potentially confounding these results.
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.