Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33011866›Full record

ArticleGastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association2021

Diagnostic performance in gastric cancer is higher using endocytoscopy with narrow-band imaging than using magnifying endoscopy with narrow-band imaging.

Yusuke Horiuchi, Toshiaki Hirasawa, Naoki Ishizuka, Hiroyuki Hatamori, Yohei Ikenoyama, Junki Tokura, Mitsuaki Ishioka, Yoshitaka Tokai, Ken Namikawa, Shoichi Yoshimizu and 4 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. 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

14 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Yusuke HoriuchiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Cancer Institute Hospital (Ringgold ID: 117105), 3-8-31 Ariake, Koto-ku, Tokyo, 135-8550, Japan. yusuke.horiuchi@jfcr.or.jp.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8116-8152
Toshiaki HirasawaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Cancer Institute Hospital (Ringgold ID: 117105), 3-8-31 Ariake, Koto-ku, Tokyo, 135-8550, Japan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6450-1934
Naoki IshizukaDepartment of Clinical Trial Planning and Management, Cancer Institute Hospital (Ringgold ID: 117105), Tokyo, Japan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5856-9668
Hiroyuki HatamoriDepartment of Gastroenterology, Cancer Institute Hospital (Ringgold ID: 117105), 3-8-31 Ariake, Koto-ku, Tokyo, 135-8550, Japan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3589-1611
Yohei IkenoyamaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Cancer Institute Hospital (Ringgold ID: 117105), 3-8-31 Ariake, Koto-ku, Tokyo, 135-8550, Japan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5035-3195
Junki TokuraDepartment of Gastroenterology, Cancer Institute Hospital (Ringgold ID: 117105), 3-8-31 Ariake, Koto-ku, Tokyo, 135-8550, Japan.
Mitsuaki IshiokaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Cancer Institute Hospital (Ringgold ID: 117105), 3-8-31 Ariake, Koto-ku, Tokyo, 135-8550, Japan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7853-4454
Yoshitaka TokaiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Cancer Institute Hospital (Ringgold ID: 117105), 3-8-31 Ariake, Koto-ku, Tokyo, 135-8550, Japan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3370-4405
Ken NamikawaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Cancer Institute Hospital (Ringgold ID: 117105), 3-8-31 Ariake, Koto-ku, Tokyo, 135-8550, Japan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3220-8645
Shoichi YoshimizuDepartment of Gastroenterology, Cancer Institute Hospital (Ringgold ID: 117105), 3-8-31 Ariake, Koto-ku, Tokyo, 135-8550, Japan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2936-4612
Akiyoshi IshiyamaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Cancer Institute Hospital (Ringgold ID: 117105), 3-8-31 Ariake, Koto-ku, Tokyo, 135-8550, Japan.
Toshiyuki YoshioDepartment of Gastroenterology, Cancer Institute Hospital (Ringgold ID: 117105), 3-8-31 Ariake, Koto-ku, Tokyo, 135-8550, Japan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6546-0329
Tomohiro TsuchidaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Cancer Institute Hospital (Ringgold ID: 117105), 3-8-31 Ariake, Koto-ku, Tokyo, 135-8550, Japan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1126-6341
Junko FujisakiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Cancer Institute Hospital (Ringgold ID: 117105), 3-8-31 Ariake, Koto-ku, Tokyo, 135-8550, Japan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9316-2660
The Cancer Institute Hospital · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFor diagnosing gastric cancer, differences in the diagnostic performance between endocytoscopy with narrow-band imaging and magnifying endoscopy with narrow-band imaging have not been reported. We aimed to clarify these differences by analyzing diagnoses made by endoscopists in Japan.

methodsThis single-center retrospective cohort study used 106 cancerous and 106 non-cancerous images obtained via both modalities (total, 424 images) for diagnosis. Sixty-one endoscopists with varying experience levels from 45 institutions were included. Diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were evaluated to determine the diagnostic performance of each modality and compared using the Mann-Whitney U test.

resultsAmong all endoscopists, diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were higher with endocytoscopy with narrow-band imaging than with magnifying endoscopy with narrow-band imaging (percentage [95% confidence interval]: 78.8% [76.4-83.0%] versus 72.2% [69.3-73.6%], p < 0.0001; 82.1% [78.3-85.9%] versus 64.2% [60.4-69.8%], p < 0.0001; 88.7% [82.6-90.7%] versus 78.5% [75.4-85.1%], p = 0.0023; 79.0% [75.3-80.5%] versus 68.5% [66.4-71.6%], p < 0.0001, respectively). In the magnifying endoscopy with narrow-band imaging-trained group, these values were also higher with endocytoscopy with narrow-band imaging than with magnifying endoscopy with narrow-band imaging (p < 0.0001, p = 0.0001, p = 0.0143, and p < 0.0001, respectively). Diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and negative predictive value were higher with endocytoscopy with narrow-band imaging than with magnifying endoscopy with narrow-band imaging in the magnifying endoscopy with narrow-band imaging-untrained group (p = 0.0041, p = 0.0049, and p = 0.0098, respectively).

conclusionsDiagnostic performance was higher using endocytoscopy with narrow-band imaging than using magnifying endoscopy with narrow-band imaging. Our results may help change the technique used to diagnose gastric cancer.

Indexed as

Case-Control StudiesClinical CompetenceEarly Detection of CancerEndoscopy, GastrointestinalHumansJapanNarrow Band ImagingPredictive Value of TestsRadiographic MagnificationRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityStomach NeoplasmsDiagnosisEndocytoscopyGastric cancerMagnifying endoscopyNarrow-band imaging

Identifiers

PMID33011866
OpenAlexW3089737891

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.