ArticleTurk gogus kalp damar cerrahisi dergisi2020
The comparison of wall thickness of esophagus and gastroesophageal junction using computed tomography with endoscopy and biopsy results.
Article in Turk gogus kalp damar cerrahisi dergisi, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of Endoscopic Findings in Gastrointestinal Tract Wall Thickening Detected on Abdominal Radiological Imaging: A Two-Center Retrospective Descriptive Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Preoperative and postoperative imaging features in thoracic surgery: insights from a single-center study.Journal of medicine and life · 2025Article
- Endoscopic Significance of Incidental Upper Gastrointestinal Wall Thickness Detected on Computed Tomography Scans.Cureus · 2024Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aims to establish a cut-off value for increases in the esophageal wall thickness measured using computed tomography to differentiate between benign and malignant pathologies.
methodsA total of 144 patients (61 males, 83 females; mean age 57.2±12.4 years; range, 24 to 86 years) who underwent thoracic and/or abdominal computed tomography in the radiology clinic between January 2015 and June 2018 for any reason and who were found to have a thickening of the esophageal wall or gastroesophageal junction were retrospectively analyzed. Tomography images were examined by two radiologists who reached consensus on the wall morphology and thickness, anatomic localization, and any accompanying findings regardless of the endoscopy results. Benign and malignant patients were identified from the endoscopy and/or biopsy results. The receiver operating characteristic analysis was carried out to establish a cut-off value for the lesion wall thickness to differentiate between benign and malignant pathologies and to determine a cut-off value for the lesionlevel thickness-normal segment thickness ratio.
resultsA statistically significant difference was found in the wall thicknesses of patients with esophageal cancer and those with benign lesions. According to a cut-off value for wall thickness of 13.5 mm, sensitivity and specificity were found to be 94.3% and 100%, respectively. The lesion-level thickness-normal segment thickness ratio was found to be statistically significant in malignant-benign differentiation, and a significant correlation was found between the asymmetric thickening and malignancy.
conclusionIncreases in the esophageal wall thickness and asymmetry detected on computed tomography can contribute to the early diagnosis of esophageal cancers, particularly in regions endemic to esophageal cancer as in Van province in eastern anatolia region of Turkey. Asymmetric wall thicknesses over 13.5 mm would be highly significant in terms of malignancy in tomographic examinations.
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.