SynthesisDiagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey)2024
Computed tomography for the diagnosis of gastroesophageal varices and risk assessment in patients with cirrhosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Synthesis in Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06707298 (The Role of Multidetector Computed Tomography), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
The Role of Multidetector Computed Tomography(MDCT) in Grading of Oesophageal Varices in Cirrhotic Patients in Comparison to Endoscopy
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Four-dimensional flow MRI-based prediction of minimal hepatic encephalopathy in patients with liver cirrhosis.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- Computed tomography poorly detects gastroesophageal varices compared with endoscopy: a real-world single-center retrospective review.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Comprehensive approach to esophageal variceal bleeding: From prevention to treatment.World journal of gastroenterology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography (CT) for detecting gastroesophageal varices (GEVs) and identify high-risk GEVs in patients with cirrhosis.
methodsA comprehensive search of databases identified 28 studies reporting on CT-based diagnosis for GEVs confirmed via endoscopy. Meta-analyses were conducted to calculate pooled sensitivity (SEN) and pooled specificity (SPE), positive likelihood ratio (PLR) and negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and the area under the curve (AUC).
resultsBased on the number of patients (or varices), the pooled SEN, SPE, PLR, NLR, DOR, and AUC of CT-based diagnosis were estimated at 0.91 (0.92), 0.81 (0.45), 4.82 (1.67), 0.11 (0.17), 42.47 (10.26), and 0.93 (0.94), respectively, for any GEV and at 0.89 (0.89), 0.90 (0.79), 8.86 (4.28), 0.12 (0.14), 75.71 (30.19), and 0.95 (0.85), respectively, for high-risk GEVs. Subgroup analyses indicated that CT had a higher diagnostic accuracy for esophageal varices compared with gastric varices (AUC: 0.93 vs. 0.89,
conclusionCT demonstrates promising diagnostic accuracy for identifying gastroesophageal varices and distinguishing high-risk GEVs in patients with cirrhosis. Further research to validate optimal variceal size cut-offs is warranted to enhance clinical utility. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Such a high diagnostic accuracy of CT scans for predicting varices is clinically meaningful for patients with cirrhosis accompanied by portal hypertension. If high-risk varices are identified at CT scans, early intervention would be helpful to reduce the risk of variceal bleeding.
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.