ArticleCancer management and research2019
A Meta-Analysis And Systematic Review Of Accuracy Of Endoscopic Ultrasound For N Staging Of Gastric Cancers.
Article in Cancer management and research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of enhanced-CT and double contrast-enhanced ultrasound for preoperative T-staging of gastric cancer: a meta-analysis.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2025Pooled it
- Diagnostic value of conventional endoscopic ultrasound for lymph node metastasis in upper gastrointestinal neoplasia: A meta-analysis.World journal of gastroenterology · 2023Pooled it
- Association between neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio and lymph node metastasis in gastric cancer: A meta-analysis.Medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Oncologic outcomes of patients with negative nodal involvement on preoperative imaging undergoing surgery for gastric cancer.World journal of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Gastric diverticulum misdiagnosed as gastrointestinal stromal tumor: a case description.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) in Gastric Cancer: Current Applications and Future Perspectives.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Article
- Update on diagnosis and treatment of early signet-ring cell gastric carcinoma: A literature review.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2023Review
- Development of a deep learning model for early gastric cancer diagnosis using preoperative computed tomography images.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Establishment of a nomogram for predicting lymph node metastasis in patients with early gastric cancer after endoscopic submucosal dissection.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Endoscopic Ultrasound vs. Computed Tomography for Gastric Cancer Staging: A Network Meta-Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Narrative review of the role of gastroenterologist in the diagnosis, treatment and palliation in gastric and gastroesophageal cancer.Annals of translational medicine · 2020Review
- Gastric carcinoma: Insights into risk factors, methods of diagnosis, possible lines of management, and the role of primary care.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2020Review
- Controversies in EUS: Do we need miniprobes?Endoscopic ultrasoundArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is widely used as a staging modality for gastric cancer. However, the results of studies on the use of EUS for N staging in gastric cancer vary. This study aimed at studying the overall diagnostic accuracy of EUS for N staging of gastric cancer.
methodsPublished studies were identified through searching the MEDLINE, Web of Science, EMBASE, SpringerLink and ScienceDirect databases. A bivariate random effect model was used to estimate the sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). A hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curves (HSROC) based on the pooled data was also computed.
resultsFifty studies (5223 patients) were included in this analysis. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR and DOR of EUS for N staging were 0.82 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.85), 0.68 (0.63 to 0.73), 2.6 (2.2 to 3.0), 0.27 (0.22 to 0.32), and 10 (8 to 12), respectively. The area under the HSROC was 0.83.
conclusionThe EUS may provide a clinically useful tool to guide physicians in the N staging of gastric cancer. However, physicians must note that the EUS has a relatively low specificity.
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.