Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36092358›Full record

ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal oncology2022

Systematic review and meta-analysis of endoscopic ultrasonography in staging diagnosis of esophageal cancer after neoadjuvant radiotherapy and chemotherapy.

Xiaodong Li, Yixiao Wang, Min Kong, Jiang Lin

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of gastrointestinal oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Xiaodong Li *Cardiothoracic Surgery, Taizhou Hospital of Zhejiang Province affiliated to Wenzhou Medical University, Enze Hospital, Taizhou Enze Medical Center (Group), Taizhou, China.
Yixiao Wang *Radiology Intervention Department, Taizhou Hospital of Zhejiang Province affiliated to Wenzhou Medical University, Taizhou, China.
Min KongCardiothoracic Surgery, Taizhou Hospital of Zhejiang Province affiliated to Wenzhou Medical University, Enze Hospital, Taizhou Enze Medical Center (Group), Taizhou, China.
Jiang LinCardiothoracic Surgery, Taizhou Hospital of Zhejiang Province affiliated to Wenzhou Medical University, Enze Hospital, Taizhou Enze Medical Center (Group), Taizhou, China.
Wenzhou Medical University · CNZhejiang Taizhou Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Clinically, it is necessary to evaluate the overall situation of the tumor before treatment, understand the disease stage of the patient, and choose the most reasonable treatment plan. Therefore, it is necessary to seek an efficient and accurate staging diagnosis method. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is widely used in staging esophageal cancer, but its accuracy will be affected by the experience of endoscopic diagnosis physicians. Methods: Computer retrieval PubMed, MEDLINE, EBSCO, Science Direct, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI). Relevant literatures published from the database establishment to January 2022 were searched using "Endoscopic ultrasound, esophageal cancer, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, diagnosis, tumor node metastasis" as the detection term. Quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies (QUADAS) was used to evaluate the quality of the included literatures, Q test and heterogeneity (I2) was adopted to evaluate the heterogeneity among various studies, and the sensitivity and specificity of EUS were calculated and compared in evaluating various stages of esophageal cancer. Results: A total of 12 articles and 824 patients were included. 12 literatures on EUS in diagnosis of T staging were included for heterogeneity test, the combined sensitivity of T1-T4 stage was 0.16 (95% CI: 0.05-0.39), 0.34 (95% CI: 0.20-0.52), 0.78 (95% CI: 0.63-0.88), 0.16 (95% CI: 0.04-0.50). The combined specificity was 0.99 (95% CI: 0.94-1.00), 0.52 (95% CI: 0.36-0.68), 0.98 (95% CI: 0.95-0.99). According to the heterogeneity test of EUS n staging in 9 literatures, the combined sensitivities of N0-N1 stage was 0.62 (95% CI: 0.53-0.71) and 0.65 (95% CI: 0.58-0.72), combined specificities was 0.65 (95% CI: 0.58-0.71) and 0.63 (95% CI: 0.54-0.72). Discussion: Based on the results, EUS is not a good diagnostic test for TNM staging.

Indexed as

diagnosis of therapeutic effectsendoscopic ultrasoundEsophageal cancermeta-analysisneoadjuvant chemotherapy

Identifiers

PMID36092358
PMCPMC9459206
OpenAlexW4285820901

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.