ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2025
Enhanced diagnostic accuracy of SINE-EUS compared to standard EUS in early colorectal cancer: a self-controlled study.
Article in International journal of colorectal disease, 2025. 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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study compared the diagnostic performance of standard endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and submucosal injection of normal saline and epinephrine-enhanced EUS (SINE-EUS) in detecting early colorectal cancer (CRC), emphasizing accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity.
methodsThe self-controlled study was conducted with 115 patients diagnosed with early CRC through optical enhancement (OE) magnified endoscopy. Among them, 104 patients underwent sequential diagnostic procedures, starting with standard EUS and followed by SINE-EUS. Pathological findings were used as the reference standard. Statistical analyses assessed the diagnostic metrics and identified factors influencing accuracy.
resultsAmong 104 patients, 82 were pathologically diagnosed with early CRC (63 cases of Tis/T1a and 19 cases of T1b). Standard EUS showed a sensitivity of 68.3%, specificity of 52.6%, and overall accuracy of 64.6%. In contrast, SINE-EUS significantly improved sensitivity (85.7%), specificity (68.4%), and overall accuracy (81.7%) (P < 0.0167). Risk factors such as ulceration were identified as independent predictors of reduced diagnostic accuracy.
conclusionsSINE-EUS outperforms standard EUS in diagnosing early CRC, particularly in terms of sensitivity and overall accuracy. This technique is reliable for clinical application, although limitations remain in improving specificity for deeper lesions.
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.