ArticleDEN open2025
Value of image enhancement of endoscopic ultrasound for diagnosis of gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions.
Article in DEN open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Gastric Glomus Tumor Diagnosed Preoperatively Using Contrast-enhanced Harmonic Endoscopic Ultrasonography and Endoscopic Ultrasonography-guided Fine Needle Aspiration.Internal medicine (Tokyo, Japan) · 2026Article
- Endoscopic resection for gastric subepithelial lesions: overtreatment or the next step in optimization?Clinical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Prediction Model of Malignant Risk of Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor Based on Endoscopic Ultrasonography.Digestive diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- The evolution of diagnostic EUS: Milestones, technologies, and global contributions.Endoscopic ultrasoundReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Among subepithelial lesions (SELs), gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) should be identified and surgically treated at an early stage. However, it is difficult to diagnose SELs smaller than 20 mm. In recent years, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) elastography (EUS-EG) and contrast-enhanced harmonic EUS (CH-EUS) have been reported to be useful for the diagnosis of SELs, although the diagnostic accuracy of a combination of EUS techniques with image enhancement is unknown. Methods: Patients with SELs who underwent EUS-guided tissue acquisition, EUS shear-wave elastography (EUS-SWE), EUS strain elastography (EUS-SE), and CH-EUS from January 2019 to June 2023 were enrolled. To assess the diagnostic accuracy for differentiating GISTs from other SELs, shear-wave velocity on EUS-SWE, the strain ratio on EUS-SE, and vascularity on CH-EUS were determined and their diagnostic accuracies were compared. Results: Forty-three patients were enrolled. When the cut-off value was set at 3.27 m/s, the sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of shear-wave velocity were 28.6%, 86.2%, and 34.9%, respectively. When the cut-off value was set at 3.79, the sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of the strain ratio were 93.1%, 64.3%, and 83.7%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of CH-EUS were 79.3%, 92.3%, and 83.7%, respectively. When EUS-SE was combined with CH-EUS, the sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy were the highest among binary combinations of image enhancement modalities. Conclusions: EUS-SE and CH-EUS are useful for differentiating GISTs from other SELs. Furthermore, the use of both modalities may further improve the identification of GISTs.
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.