ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Diagnostic Value of Endoscopic Ultrasound after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Gastric Cancer Restaging: A Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Test.
Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) in Gastric Cancer: Current Applications and Future Perspectives.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Advanced Multiparametric MRI Strategies for Tumor Restaging After Neoadjuvant Therapy in Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer.Annals of surgical oncology · 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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic value of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) after neoadjuvant therapy (NT) for gastric cancer restaging by meta-analysis. We conducted a systematic search of studies published on PubMed and Web of Science up to 30th August 2021. Assessing the risk of bias in the included studies was done with the QUADAS-2 tool. We used R and Review Manager 5.4.1 for calculations and statistical analysis. To evaluate the diagnostic value of EUS after NT for gastric cancer restaging, we performed a meta-analysis on six studies, with a total of 283 patients, including true-positive, true-negative, false-positive, and false-negative results for T1-T4, N0. EUS as a diagnostic test for GC patients after chemotherapy has a relatively low DOR for the T2 (3.96) and T4 stages (4.79) and a relatively high partial AUC for the T2 (0.85) and T4 (0.71) stages. Our results reveal that the pooled sensitivity for T stages after chemotherapy is rather low (29-56%), except for the T3 stage (71%). A potential limitation of our study was the small number of included studies, but no significant heterogeneity was found between them. Our meta-analysis concludes that EUS is not recommended or is still under debate for GC restaging after NT.
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.