SynthesisTechniques in coloproctology2019
Estimation of invasion depth of early colorectal cancer using EUS and NBI-ME: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Techniques in coloproctology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Enhanced diagnostic accuracy of SINE-EUS compared to standard EUS in early colorectal cancer: a self-controlled study.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025Article
- CT morphological features for predicting the risk of lymph node metastasis in T1 colorectal cancer.European radiology · 2023Article
- A diagnostic test: diagnostic value of gastrointestinal endoscopy narrow-band imaging (NBI) for colorectal laterally spreading tumor (LST) and submucosal invasion.Translational cancer research · 2022Article
- Artificial intelligence-assisted colonic endocytoscopy for cancer recognition: a multicenter study.Endoscopy international open · 2021Article
- Medical needs related to the endoscopic technology and colonoscopy for colorectal cancer diagnosis.BMC cancer · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and narrow band imaging-magnifying endoscopy (NBI-ME) are often used as diagnostic tools to estimate the depth of invasion in early colorectal cancer (CRC). The aim of this study was to compare NBI-ME with EUS in distinguishing between slight submucosal invasion (invasion depth < 1000 μm) and massive submucosal invasion in patients with early CRC, since slight submucosal invasion is currently considered as an indication for endoscopic resection.
methodsFor this meta-analysis, relevant studies were identified from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus and the Cochrane Library databases between January 1997 and September 2016. Data on the yield of tumors were extracted, pooled, and analyzed by stata12.0 software. The sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio and negative likelihood ratio in differentiating slight submucosal invasion from massive submucosal invasion were calculated for both diagnostic modalities.
resultsSixteen studies involving 2197 lesions were included: nine were studies on EUS and 7 were studies on NBI-ME. The pooled sensitivity of EUS was 0.902 (95% CI 0.863-0.930), the specificity was 0.877 (95% CI 0.810-0.922), the positive likelihood ratio was 7.314 (95% CI 4.551-11.755) and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.112 (95% CI 0.076-0.164). The pooled sensitivity and specificity of NBI-ME were 0.981 (95% CI 0.949-0.993) and 0.651 (95% CI 0.600-0.699), respectively, the positive likelihood ratio was 2.815 (95% CI 2.432-3.258) and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.029 (95% CI 0.010-0.080).
conclusionsThe sensitivity tended to be higher in ME-NBI than EUS for early CRC with slight submucosal invasion, whereas the specificity was significantly lower in NBI-ME than in EUS.
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.