Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34164768›Full record

ArticleJapanese journal of radiology2021

Is barium enema examination negligible for the management of colorectal cancer? Comparison with conventional colonoscopy and magnifying colonoscopy.

Keisuke Kawasaki, Shotaro Nakamura, Makoto Eizuka, Yoshihito Tanaka, Tomo Kumei, Shunichi Yanai, Yosuke Toya, Jun Urushikubo, Takehiro Torisu, Tomohiko Moriyama and 3 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Japanese journal of radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 32% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
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

13 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Keisuke KawasakiDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Iwate Medical University, 2-1-1, Idaidori, Yahaba, 028-3695, Japan. kawasaki.keisuke.084@m.kyushu-u.ac.jp.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2645-4417
Shotaro NakamuraDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Iwate Medical University, 2-1-1, Idaidori, Yahaba, 028-3695, Japan.
Makoto EizukaDepartment of Diagnostic Pathology, Iwate Medical University, Yahaba, Japan.
Yoshihito TanakaDepartment of Diagnostic Pathology, Iwate Medical University, Yahaba, Japan.
Tomo KumeiDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Iwate Medical University, 2-1-1, Idaidori, Yahaba, 028-3695, Japan.
Shunichi YanaiDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Iwate Medical University, 2-1-1, Idaidori, Yahaba, 028-3695, Japan.
Yosuke ToyaDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Iwate Medical University, 2-1-1, Idaidori, Yahaba, 028-3695, Japan.
Jun UrushikuboDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Iwate Medical University, 2-1-1, Idaidori, Yahaba, 028-3695, Japan.
Takehiro TorisuDepartment of Medicine and Clinical Science, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan.
Tomohiko MoriyamaDepartment of Medicine and Clinical Science, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan.
Junji UmenoDepartment of Medicine and Clinical Science, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan.
Tamotsu SugaiDepartment of Diagnostic Pathology, Iwate Medical University, Yahaba, Japan.
Takayuki MatsumotoDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Iwate Medical University, 2-1-1, Idaidori, Yahaba, 028-3695, Japan.
Iwate Medical University · JPKyushu University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim of this investigation was to evaluate the clinical value of barium enema (BE) examination for the management of colorectal epithelial neoplasms.

methodsWe reviewed the colonoscopy records at our institution from 2014 to 2019 and identified cases of endoscopically or surgically resected colorectal epithelial neoplasms evaluated by BE, conventional colonoscopy, magnifying narrow-band imaging colonoscopy (M-NBI), and magnifying chromoendoscopy (MCE). The yield of each modality for the diagnosis of massively submucosal invasive (mSM) colorectal cancer was evaluated by a receiver-operating characteristic analysis including the area under the curve (AUC).

resultsWe analyzed the records of 105 patients (17 adenomas, 53 high-grade dysplasias (HGDs), and 35 cancers). Smooth surface, irregularity in depression, and eccentric deformity on the profile view with BE were observed more frequently in mSM cancers than adenomas/HGDs/slightly submucosal invasive cancers (p < 0.01). The AUC of BE was 0.8355, the value of which was not different from the other three modalities (conventional colonoscopy 0.7678; M-NBI 0.7835; MCE 0.8376). Although the specificity, PPV, and accuracy of BE were lower than those of M-NBI and MCE, the sensitivity and NPV of BE were the highest among the four types of examinations.

conclusionBE is still available and may serve as a supplementary modality for the diagnosis of mSM cancers.

Indexed as

AdenomaColorectal NeoplasmsBarium EnemaColonoscopyHumansNarrow Band ImagingBarium enemaCancerInvasion depthNBIPit pattern

Identifiers

PMID34164768
OpenAlexW3176457935

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.