ArticleDiagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy2018
Endoscopic Ultrasound Elastography for Evaluation of Lymph Nodes: A Single Center Experience.
Article in Diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The expanding role of endoscopic ultrasound elastography.Clinical journal of gastroenterology · 2022Review
- Endoscopic ultrasound assessment and tissue acquisition of mediastinal and abdominal lymph nodes.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2021Review
- Ultrasound Elastography for the Evaluation of Lymph Nodes.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Review
- Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration (EUS-FNA) with Image Enhancement.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimThe differentiation between malignant and benign lymph nodes (LNs) is important for tumor staging, for detection of prognosis, and for selection of the best treatment strategy in many cancers. On B-mode EUS, there are some known criteria that suggest the malignant nature of LNs; these criteria may be found in benign LNs. The aim of the work is to evaluate the effectiveness of elasticity score and SR to differentiate between benign and malignant LNs. PATIENTS AND
methodsThe study was designed as a retrospective study that included 40 patients with abdominal or mediastinal LNs, either associated with primary masses or isolated, referred for EUS evaluation. Elasticity scores and SR were determined during the examination and finally, EUS-FNA was done at the end of the procedure.
resultsIn this 2-years study, 40 patients were enrolled (24 malignant; 16 benign). There were 23 males and 17 females. Their mean age was 52.5 years (range: 28-77). ES alone had a specificity of 87.5%, sensitivity of 41.7%, PPV of 83.3%, NPV of 50%, and accuracy of 60%. Based on the ROC curve analysis results, the best cut-off level of SR to obtain the maximum area under the curve (AUC) was 6.7 with a specificity of 99.9%, sensitivity of 57.1%, PPV of 99.9%, NPV of 64%, and accuracy of 77.5%.
conclusionThe use of elasticity score and SR increases the reliability of differentiation between benign and malignant LNs and can decrease the number of unnecessary biopsies.
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.