ArticleMedicine2021
Magnifying endoscopy in detecting early gastric cancer: A network meta-analysis of prospective studies.
Article in Medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Narrow-Band Imaging for the Detection of Early Gastric Cancer Among High-Risk Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Pooled it
- Prevention of Gastric Cancer.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Gastric intestinal metaplasia: Management and surveillance strategies.World journal of gastrointestinal pathophysiology · 2026Review
- Single-Time Gastroscopy in High-Risk Patients: Screening Effectiveness for Gastric Precancerous Conditions in a Low-To Moderate-Incidence Population.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Endoscopic detection and diagnosis of gastric cancer using image-enhanced endoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.DEN open · 2025Review
- Shedding a new light on gastric cancer screening.United European gastroenterology journal · 2024Article
- Efficacy of magnifying endoscopy combined with narrowband imaging in detection of early gastric cancer: a systematic evaluation and meta-analysis.American journal of translational research · 2024Review
- Umbrella systematic review of potential quality indicators for the detection of dysplasia and cancer at upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.Endoscopy international open · 2023Review
- Endoscopic Imaging for the Diagnosis of Neoplastic and Pre-Neoplastic Conditions of the Stomach.Cancers · 2023Review
- Article
- Research trends in endoscopic applications in early gastric cancer: A bibliometric analysis of studies published from 2012 to 2022.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Review
- Current Status of Photodynamic Diagnosis for Gastric Tumors.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Fundamentals, Diagnostic Capabilities and Perspective of Narrow Band Imaging for Early Gastric Cancer.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConventional white-light imaging endoscopy (C-WLI) had a significant number of misdiagnosis in early gastric cancer (EGC), and magnifying endoscopy (ME) combined with different optical imaging was more accurate in the diagnosis of EGC. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of ME and compare the accuracy of ME with different optical imaging in detecting EGC.
methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify all relevant studies. Pair-wise meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the accuracy of ME, and Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed to combine direct and indirect evidence and estimate the relative effects.
resultsEight prospective studies were identified with a total of 5948 patients and 3 optical imaging in ME (ME with WLI (M-WLI), ME with narrow-band imaging (M-NBI), and ME with blue laser imaging (M-BLI)). Pair-wise meta-analysis showed a higher accuracy of ME than C-WLI (OR: 2.97, 95% CI: 1.68∼5.25). In network meta-analysis, both M-NBI and M-BLI were more accurate than M-WLI (OR: 2.56, 95% CI: 2.13∼3.13; OR: 3.13, 95% CI: 1.85∼5.71). There was no significant difference between M-NBI and M-BLI.
conclusionME was effective in improving the detecting rate of EGC, especially with NBI or BLI.
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.