Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32436866›Full record

SynthesisSaudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology Association

Endoscopic ultrasound versus computed tomography in determining the resectability of pancreatic cancer: A diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis.

Muhammad I O Rahman, Brian P H Chan, Parsa M Far, Lawrence Mbuagbaw, Lehana Thabane, Mohammad Yaghoobi

Open access · diamondAbstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Saudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology Association. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Muhammad I O RahmanDivision of Gastroenterology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Brian P H ChanDivision of Gastroenterology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Parsa M FarDepartment of Medicine, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
Lawrence MbuagbawDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Lehana ThabaneDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Mohammad YaghoobiDivision of Gastroenterology; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact; GI Health Technology Assessment Group, The Farncombe Family Digestive Health Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
McMaster University · CAPopulation Health Research Institute · CAQueen's University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

aimEndoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) with pancreas protocol are used in assessing the resectability of neoplastic pancreatic lesions. Here, we performed a diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) meta-analysis, comparing the diagnostic accuracy of EUS and CT in evaluating the resectability of pancreatic cancer using surgical assessment as the reference standard. PATIENTS AND

methodsA comprehensive electronic search was conducted up to March 2020. Studies comparing EUS and CT in assessing the resectability of pancreatic cancer using surgical assessment as reference standard were included. QUADAS-2 tool was used to assess the quality of the included studies. After data extraction, an analysis was done using DerSimonian Laird method (random-effects model) to estimate the overall diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and determine the best-fitting receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve.

resultsTwo studies, with 77 subjects combined, were included in the analysis. Overall, the risk of bias was moderate. EUS and CT were comparable in determining the resectability of pancreatic cancer with AUC = 75% (95% confidence interval (CI) 66%- 84%) for EUS as compared to 78% (95% CI 69%- 87%) for CT (P > 0.05). Pooled sensitivity and specificity was 87% (95% CI 70%- 96%) and 63% (95% CI 48%- 77%), respectively for EUS and 87% (95% CI 70%- 96%) and 70% (95% CI 55%- 83%), respectively for CT. DOR was 11.51 (95% CI 3.55- 36.81) for EUS as compared to 15.91 (95% CI 4.83- 51.62) for CT (P > 0.05).

conclusionsBoth EUS and CT provide reasonable sensitivity and specificity to detect the resectability of pancreatic cancer.

Indexed as

EndosonographyPancreatic NeoplasmsTomography, X-Ray ComputedDiagnostic Tests, RoutineHumansNeoplasm StagingPancreasROC CurveSensitivity and SpecificityCT scanlaparotomypancreatic carcinomatumor resectionultrasound

Identifiers

PMID32436866
PMCPMC7392294
OpenAlexW3028113887

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.