Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33799500›Full record

ReviewCancers2021

Comparison of the Diagnostic Efficiency of Radial- and Convex-Arrayed Echoendoscopes for Indirect Findings of Pancreatic Cancer: A Retrospective Comparative Study Using Propensity Score Method.

Yuki Ishikawa-Kakiya, Hirotsugu Maruyama, Kei Yamamoto, Masafumi Yamamura, Kojiro Tanoue, Akira Higashimori, Masaki Ominami, Yuji Nadatani, Shusei Fukunaga, Koji Otani and 8 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancers, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

18 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Yuki Ishikawa-KakiyaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Osaka City University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka 545-8585, Japan.
Hirotsugu MaruyamaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Osaka City University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka 545-8585, Japan.
Kei YamamotoDepartment of Gastroenterology, Osaka City University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka 545-8585, Japan.
Masafumi YamamuraDepartment of Gastroenterology, Osaka City University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka 545-8585, Japan.ORCID 0000-0003-4486-8859
Kojiro TanoueDepartment of Gastroenterology, Osaka City University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka 545-8585, Japan.
Akira HigashimoriDepartment of Gastroenterology, Osaka City University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka 545-8585, Japan.
Masaki OminamiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Osaka City University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka 545-8585, Japan.
Yuji NadataniDepartment of Gastroenterology, Osaka City University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka 545-8585, Japan.
Shusei FukunagaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Osaka City University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka 545-8585, Japan.
Koji OtaniDepartment of Gastroenterology, Osaka City University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka 545-8585, Japan.
Shuhei HosomiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Osaka City University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka 545-8585, Japan.
Fumio TanakaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Osaka City University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka 545-8585, Japan.
Noriko KamataDepartment of Gastroenterology, Osaka City University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka 545-8585, Japan.
Yasuaki NagamiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Osaka City University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka 545-8585, Japan.
Koichi TairaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Osaka City University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka 545-8585, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-4932-508X
Masatsugu ShibaDepartment of Medical Statistics, Osaka City University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka 545-8585, Japan.
Toshio WatanabeDepartment of Gastroenterology, Osaka City University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka 545-8585, Japan.
Yasuhiro FujiwaraDepartment of Gastroenterology, Osaka City University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka 545-8585, Japan.
Osaka City University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is useful for detecting early-stage pancreatic cancer. Because the detection of small lesions is difficult, it is important to detect indirect findings, namely caliber change, retention cysts, and dilatation of the branch duct, during the procedure. Although two types of EUS endoscopes are frequently used, there is no comparative study on their efficacy for detecting indirect findings. Therefore, we aimed to compare the diagnostic efficacy of these two types for indirect findings. We retrospectively analyzed 316 consecutive patients who had undergone EUS for pancreaticobiliary disease at a single center between January 2017 and December 2018. The main outcome was the detection rate of indirect findings and its comparison between the two echoendoscope types. This outcome was achieved using the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis. The detection rate of indirect findings was higher for the radial-arrayed endoscope than for the convex-arrayed echoendoscope (9.2% vs. 2.3% (

Indexed as

endoscopic ultrasonographyindirect findingsinverse probability of treatment weighting analysispancreatic cancer

Identifiers

PMID33799500
PMCPMC8001660
OpenAlexW3135508852

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.