ArticleWorld journal of gastroenterology2024
Endoscopic ultrasonography-related diagnostic accuracy and clinical significance on small rectal neuroendocrine neoplasms.
Article in World journal of gastroenterology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Current status of endoscopic resection for small rectal neuroendocrine tumors.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This research aimed to examine the diagnostic accuracy and clinical significance of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) in the context of small rectal neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs). A total of 108 patients with rectal subepithelial lesions (SELs) with a diameter of < 20 mm were included in the analysis. The diagnosis and depth assessment of EUS was compared to the histology findings. The prevalence of NENs in rectal SELs was 78.7% (85/108). The sensitivity of EUS in detecting rectal NENs was 98.9% (84/85), while the specificity was 52.2% (12/23). Overall, the diagnostic accuracy of EUS in identifying rectal NENs was 88.9% (96/108). The overall accuracy rate for EUS in assessing the depth of invasion in rectal NENs was 92.9% (78/84). Therefore, EUS demonstrates reasonable diagnostic accuracy in detecting small rectal NENs, with good sensitivity but inferior specificity. EUS may also assist physicians in assessing the depth of invasion in small rectal NENs before endoscopic excision.
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.