ArticleJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology2024
Unified Magnifying Endoscopic Classification (UMEC) of Gastrointestinal Lesions: A North American Validation Study.
Article in Journal of the Canadian Association 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.
- [Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection in Non-pedunculated Colorectal Lesions: A Prospective Series in a Tertiary Center in Peru].Acta gastroenterologica LatinoamericanaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and study aim: Magnifying endoscopy enables the diagnosis of advanced neoplasia throughout the gastrointestinal tract. The unified magnifying endoscopic classification (UMEC) framework unifies optical diagnosis criteria in the esophagus, stomach, and colon, dividing lesions into three categories: non-neoplastic, intramucosal neoplasia, and deep submucosal invasive cancer. This study aims to ascertain the performance of North American endoscopists when using the UMEC. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, five North American endoscopists without prior training in magnifying endoscopy independently diagnosed images of gastrointestinal tract lesions using UMEC. All endoscopists were blinded to endoscopic findings and histopathological diagnosis. Using histopathology as the gold standard, the endoscopists' diagnostic performances using UMEC were evaluated. Results: A total of 299 lesions (77 esophagus, 92 stomach, and 130 colon) were assessed. For esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy ranged from 65.2% (95%CI: 50.9-77.9) to 87.0% (95%CI: 75.3-94.6), 77.4% (95%CI: 60.9-89.6) to 96.8% (95%CI: 86.8-99.8), and 75.3% to 87.0%, respectively. For gastric adenocarcinoma, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy ranged from 94.9% (95%CI: 85.0-99.1) to 100%, 52.9% (95%CI: 39.4-66.2) to 92.2% (95%CI: 82.7-97.5), and 73.3% to 93.3%. For colorectal adenocarcinoma, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy ranged from 76.2% (95%CI: 62.0-87.3) to 83.3% (95%CI: 70.3-92.5), 89.7% (95%CI: 82.1-94.9) to 97.7% (95%CI: 93.1-99.6), and 86.8% to 90.7%. Intraclass correlation coefficients indicated good to excellent reliability. Conclusion: UMEC is a simple classification that may be used to introduce endoscopists to magnifying narrow-band imaging and optical diagnosis, yielding satisfactory diagnostic accuracy.
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.