ArticlePloS one2019
New endoscopic ultrasonography criteria for malignant lymphadenopathy based on inter-rater agreement.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial intelligence in endoscopic ultrasound for lymph node diagnosis: perspective on an evolving frontier.Clinical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence for Lymph Node Detection and Malignancy Prediction in Endoscopic Ultrasound: A Multicenter Study.Cancers · 2025Article
- Interobserver variability in lymph node evaluation with endoscopic ultrasonography in cholangiocarcinoma.Endoscopy international open · 2025Article
- Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Biopsy in the Diagnostic Work-Up of Deep-Seated Lymphadenopathies and Spleen Lesions: A Monocentric Experience.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound for swollen lymph nodes.Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001) · 2023Review
- Endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle biopsy vs fine-needle aspiration for lymph nodes tissue acquisition: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Gastroenterology report · 2022Article
- Endoscopic ultrasound assessment and tissue acquisition of mediastinal and abdominal lymph nodes.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2021Review
- High Sensitivity of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration and Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Biopsy in Lymphadenopathy Caused by Metastatic Disease: A Prospective Comparative Study.Clinical endoscopy · 2021Article
- Article
- Interobserver Reliability of Endoscopic Ultrasonography: Literature Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Transabdominal Ultrasonography for Preoperative Diagnosis of Lymph Node Metastasis in Colon Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Cancer diagnosis & prognosisArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsVarious studies have been previously conducted on the diagnosis of lymphadenopathy as benign or malignant, but the results vary. These studies did not describe the inter-rater agreement on the EUS features of lymphadenopathy. In this study, we evaluate the inter-rater agreement on EUS features and propose EUS diagnostic norms for lymphadenopathy based on inter-rater agreement.
methodA total of 68 lymph nodes subjected to EUS-fine needle aspiration (FNA) were reviewed by five endoscopic experts. The EUS features evaluated lymph node size, shape, border, margin, echogenicity, homogeneity, and the hilum of the lymph node. Inter-rater agreement (multi-rater kappa statics) was performed. We established new criteria using results with a high degree of inter-rater agreement from EUS features and compared them with the former criteria.
resultThere was a moderate agreement on shape, kappa (K) = 0.44 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.34-0.54), and fair agreement on echogenicity, homogeneity, border, and hilum of the lymph node, K (95% CI) = 0.33 (0.17-0.38), 0.34 (0.26-0.35), 0.22 (0.21-0.31), and 0.22 (0.11-0.26), respectively. This resulted in the establishment of new EUS diagnostic criteria using shape, long axis > 20 mm and short axis > 10 mm. New criteria were superior to old criteria (area under the curve 0.82 vs 0.52, P < 0.001).
conclusionEUS diagnostic criteria for lymphadenopathy based on inter-rater agreement were more accurate than old criteria. This result will be useful for the diagnosis of lymphadenopathy.
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.