Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36353229›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2022

Nomogram for preoperative estimation of histologic grade in gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors.

Zhi-Qi Wu, Yan Li, Na-Na Sun, Qin Xu, Jing Zhou, Kan-Kan Su, Hemant Goyal, Hua-Guo Xu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. 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

8 authors.

Zhi-Qi WuDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China.
Yan LiAcademy for Advanced Interdisciplinary Studies, Peking University, Peking, China.
Na-Na SunDepartment of Radiology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China.
Qin XuDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Jurong Hospital Affiliated to Jiangsu University, Jurong, China.
Jing ZhouDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China.
Kan-Kan SuDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China.
Hemant GoyalDepartment of Internal Medicine, Mercer University School of Medicine, Macon, GA, United States.
Hua-Guo XuDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The treatment strategies and prognosis for gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors were associated with tumor grade. Preoperative predictive grading could be of great benefit in the selection of treatment options for patients. However, there is still a lack of effective non-invasive strategies to detect gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors (GI-NETs) grading preoperatively. Methods: The data on 147 consecutive GI-NETs patients was retrospectively collected from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2019. Logistic regression was used to construct a predictive model of gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumor grading using preoperative laboratory and imaging parameters.The validity of the model was assessed by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), calibration curve, and decision curve analysis (DCA). Results: The factors associated with GI-NETs grading were age, tumor size, lymph nodes, neuron-specific enolase (NSE), hemoglobin (HGB) and sex, and two models were constructed by logistic regression for prediction. Combining these 6 factors, the nomogram was constructed for model 1 to distinguish between G3 and G1/2, achieving a good AUC of 0.921 (95% CI: 0.884-0.965), and the sensitivity, specificity, accuracy were 0.9167, 0.8256, 0.8630, respectively. The model 2 was to distinguish between G1 and G2/3, and the variables were age, tumor size, lymph nodes, NSE, with an AUC of 0.847 (95% CI: 0.799-0.915), and the sensitivity, specificity, accuracy were 0.7882, 0.8710, 0.8231, respectively. Two online web servers were established on the basis of the proposed nomogram to facilitate clinical use. Both models showed an excellent calibration curve through 1000 times bootstrapped dataset and the clinical usefulness were confirmed using decision curve analysis. Conclusion: The model served as a valuable non-invasive tool for differentiating between different grades of GI-NETs, personalizing the calculation which can lead to a rational treatment choice.

Indexed as

Gastrointestinal NeoplasmsNeuroendocrine TumorsHumansIntestinal NeoplasmsNeoplasm GradingNomogramsPancreatic NeoplasmsRetrospective StudiesStomach NeoplasmsGI-NETsgradenomogrampreoperative estimationserum biomarker

Identifiers

PMID36353229
PMCPMC9637831

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.