ArticleAnnals of gastroenterology
Comparing accuracy of high-risk features for detecting advanced neoplasia in pancreatic cystic lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Annals of gastroenterology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pancreatic Cystic Lesions in the Older Patient: A Review of Clinical Guidelines and Management.Current gastroenterology reports · 2025Review
- American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on gastrostomy feeding tubes: methodology and review of evidence.VideoGIE : an official video journal of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe American Gastroenterological Association recommends endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) for evaluating pancreatic cystic lesions (PCL) with ≥2 high-risk features (HRF), whereas the American College of Gastroenterology recommends EUS for ≥1 HRF. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the diagnostic accuracy of using ≥1 vs. ≥2 HRF for assessing the risk of advanced neoplasia (AN) and performing EUS in PCL.
methodsAn electronic database search was performed for eligible studies. AN was defined as pancreatic adenocarcinoma, intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm or mucinous cystadenoma with high-grade dysplasia, pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia and pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. HRF included cyst size ≥3 cm, solid component, and dilated pancreatic duct ≥5 mm. The primary outcome was the sensitivity and specificity of using ≥1 vs. ≥2 HRF as an indication for EUS to detect AN in PCL.
resultsOf 38 studies initially screened, 8 were included in the final analysis. Seven studies assessed the accuracy of ≥2 HRF and 4 studies assessed ≥1 HRF. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of EUS for detecting AN were 41.7% (95% confidence interval 19.5-67.8%), 90.8% (81.9-95.5%), 30.4% (19.4-44.2%) and 94.3% (89.6-97.0%) with ≥2HRFs, and 77.1% (66.1-85.3%), 72.7% (50.4-87.5%), 17.95% (10.3-29.4%), 98.1% (90.8-99.6%), respectively, with ≥1 HRF.
conclusionPerforming EUS for PCL with ≥1 HRF could offer greater sensitivity in detecting AN compared to ≥2 HRF, with a similar negative predictive value.
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.