ArticleCurrent health sciences journal
Accuracy of Endoscopic Ultrasonography for Gastric Cancer Staging.
Article in Current health sciences journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multiscale Spatial Fusion Feature-Driven Characterization of Gastric Cancer Invasive Margins: A Multicenter Cohort Study for Preoperative Accurate Differentiation Between T4a and T4b Subtypes.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- Evolving Paradigms in Gastric Cancer Staging: From Conventional Imaging to Advanced MRI and Artificial Intelligence.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Combined multidetector computed tomography and gastrointestinal endoscopy for gastric cancer screening, preoperative staging, and lymph node metastasis detection.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2026Article
- Diagnostic Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) of the Luminal Gastrointestinal Tract.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Prognostic value of lymph node density on cancer staging system for gastric cancer without distal metastasis: a population-based analysis of SEER database.World journal of surgical oncology · 2022Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Gastric cancer remains a health problem, with treatment indications varying with the TNM stage. We aimed in this study to highlight the role of EUS in GC patients and also to calculate the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of EUS for T and N staging in our group of patients with this disease. In this study, we included 41 GC patients, and individual values for every T stage accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, correct staging, understaging, and overstaging were calculated. EUS overall accuracy for T staging was 58.53%, with the highest sensitivity reached for the T4 stage, 95.83%. For N+vs. N-staging, EUS accuracy was 68.29%, with a sensitivity of 75% and a specificity of 44.44%. The positive and negative predicted values for the presence or absence of nodal disease were 82.75%, respectively 33.33%. In conclusion, this study confirmed the importance of EUS for the assessment of GC T and N stage and highlighted the role of this tool in the detection of liver micrometastasis unrevealed by other imaging techniques like abdominal ultrasound or MSCT.
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.