ArticleAmerican journal of cancer research2022
Endoscopic features of esophageal high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia dominated by cytological atypia.
Article in American journal of cancer research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Little is known about esophageal high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia dominated by cytological atypia (HGINc). We aimed to elucidate the endoscopic features of HGINc compared with esophageal high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia dominated by architectural atypia (HGINa). All patients pathologically diagnosed as esophageal high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia after endoscopic submucosal dissection at our center between January 2018 and December 2019 were included in this study. According to the pathological diagnosis, the patients were divided into two groups: HGINa group and HGINc group. Basic characteristics and endoscopic information were collected in detail. Data were analyzed statistically. Binary logistic regression was performed and a predictive model for HGINc was established. Then we evaluated its predictive value and built a nomogram for clinical application. A total of 175 patients were included in this study (126 with HGINa and 49 with HGINc). Among 228 lesions found in all patients, there were 148 HGINa and 80 HGINc. The independent relevant factors for HGINc were tobacco and alcohol usage, color, and gross type. To predict risk of HGINc, a three-factor model (TFM) was established with a highest area under curve (AUC) as 0.869 (95% CI, 0.852, 0.939). When the cut-off value was set as 0.3569184, the diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for HGINc was 81.14%, 88.75%, 77.03%, 67.62%, and 92.68%, respectively. HGINc differs greatly in endoscopic features from HGINa in our study. It's important to reduce misdiagnosis that our model was established with good predictive value for clinical application.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35530284PMC9077055What 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.