ArticleSurgical endoscopy2024
The diagnostic performance of V' and U' variables as an objective index of pink-color sign for diagnosing esophageal cancerous lesions.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2024. 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
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
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe pink-color sign (PCS) has been widely used for diagnosing esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) during Lugol's iodine chromoendoscopy. However, the identification of the PCS only relies on the subjective assessments made by the endoscopist, which could lead to bias and disagreement. Previous research has indicated that the V' variable can, as an objective index, define the PCS in the LU'V' color space. We aimed to validate the diagnostic performance of the PCS defined by the V' variable alone and attempt to improve the diagnostic performance by combining the V' and U' variables.
methodsWe re-examined 231 subjects with Lugol's unstained lesions (LULs) from a previously reported prospective trial. The diagnostic performance of the method using V' variable alone (V' alone method), the combination method using V' and U' variables (V' + U' method), and the endoscopists were calculated and compared.
resultsA total of 236 LULs were included, among which 46 were histologically confirmed to be cancerous lesions. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the V' alone method were 73.91% (95% CI 58.87-85.73%), 79.47% (95% CI 73.03-84.98%), and 78.39% (95% CI 72.59-83.47%) in the external validation cohort, respectively. It is inferior to endoscopists in terms of specificity and accuracy. The V' + U' method demonstrated a diagnostic performance comparable to the experienced endoscopists, with sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 76.74% (95% CI 61.37-88.25%), 88.64% (95% CI 83.00-92.92%), and 86.30% (95% CI 81.03-90.56%), respectively.
conclusionThe V' alone method exhibited lower specificity and accuracy than the experienced endoscopist and the V' + U' method. However, the modified V' + U' method demonstrated a diagnostic performance comparable to experienced endoscopists. Utilizing the objective index of the PCS could provide valuable support in clinical decision-making.
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.