ArticleSurgical endoscopy2021
A forward-viewing radial-array echoendoscope is useful for diagnosing the depth of colorectal neoplasia invasion.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIt is important to accurately diagnose the depth of colorectal neoplasia invasion. We aimed to evaluate the usefulness of a new forward-viewing radial-array echoendoscope (FRE), relative to the pit pattern method.
methodsIn this prospective study, the invasion depth of suspected early-stage carcinoma was diagnosed using the pit pattern and FRE methods. The diagnoses were classified as T1a (submucosal invasion distance < 1,000 μm) or shallower and T1b (≥ 1,000 μm) or deeper. Pathological diagnoses were used to compare the diagnostic capabilities of the two methods.
resultsThe final analyses included 110 lesions. The FRE was successfully inserted to the lesion in all cases. There were no significant differences between the two methods regarding the correct prediction rate (79.1% vs. 75.5%, P = 0.57), accuracy (81.3% vs. 79.0%, P = 0.68), specificity (81.3% vs. 70.8%, P = 0.135), positive predictive value (65.0% vs. 60.4%, P = 0.649), negative predictive value (91.0% vs. 98.1%, P = 0.108), or frequency of unevaluable cases (2.7% vs. 4.5%, P = 0.471). The correct prediction rate was calculated by adding the number of unevaluable cases to the denominator of accuracy. Relative to the pit pattern method, the FRE method offered significantly higher sensitivity for predicting T1b or deeper invasion (81.3% vs. 97.0%, P = 0.048). The pit pattern method had significantly poorer accuracy for large lesions (> 36 mm) than for smaller lesions (≤ 36 mm). In contrast, the accuracy of the FRE method did not differ significantly with lesion size. When using the FRE method, no cases were unevaluable because of attenuation. The FRE method provided correct diagnoses in 2 of 3 cases that were unevaluable using the pit pattern method.
conclusionsThe pit pattern and FRE methods offered similar diagnostic performance for invasion depth. Furthermore, the FRE method may be used to correctly diagnose cases that are unevaluable using the pit pattern method.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32876738What 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.