ArticleSurgical endoscopy2023
Reliability of endoscopic ultrasonography and endoscopy in measurement of gastric subepithelial tumor size.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- [Diagnosis and Management of Asymptomatic Upper Gastrointestinal Subepithelial Lesions].The Korean journal of gastroenterology = Taehan Sohwagi Hakhoe chi · 2026Guideline
- The progression rate and risk factor analysis of small gastric subepithelial tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSubepithelial tumor (SET) size is important in determining the treatment plan; however, size estimation for gastric SETs has not been well investigated. We aimed to investigate which method predicts SET size most accurately by retrospectively analyzing surgically removed SETs.
methodsFrom January 2015 through June 2020, patients who underwent surgical gastric SET removal at Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea, were enrolled. SET sizes measured by pathologists and endoscopists were retrospectively reviewed. The reliability of SET size measurement by endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and endoscopy was calculated using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), with pathologic size as the gold standard.
resultsOverall, EUS was highly reliable (ICC 0.86, P < 0.001), and endoscopy was moderately reliable (ICC 0.75, P < 0.001). When analyzed according to SET location, endoscopy was highly reliable in the lesser curvature's lower third (ICC 0.86, P = 0.014), middle third (ICC 0.88, P < 0.001), and upper third (ICC 0.90, P < 0.001); as well as the anterior wall's middle third (0.84, P < 0.001) and the posterior wall's upper third (ICC 0.80, P < 0.001). EUS (ICC 0.96, P = 0.005) and endoscopy (ICC 0.95, P = 0.008) both were most reliable for lower-third posterior wall lesions, whereas endoscopy was unreliable for middle-third greater curvature lesions (ICC 0.41, P = 0.05).
conclusionsBoth EUS and endoscopy were reliable methods for measuring gastric SET size, and overall, EUS was more reliable than endoscopy. In terms of SET location, EUS was consistently reliable, whereas endoscopy showed variable reliability. When measuring SET size by endoscopy, additional size measurements with EUS should be considered in certain locations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36357549What 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.