ArticleClinical endoscopy2025
A systematic review on endoscopic ultrasound in gastric neuroendocrine neoplasms: guidelines outpacing evidence.
Article in Clinical endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Differences in Endoscopic Features of Gastric Neuroendocrine Tumor and Neuroendocrine Carcinoma From a Clinicopathological Perspective.JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2025Review
- Step-by-Step Approach to the Incidental Diagnosis of Type I Gastric Neuroendocrine Tumors: Practical Insights.JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGastric neuroendocrine neoplasms (g-NENs), though rare, have shown a rise in incidence due to increased endoscopic screening and improved diagnostic awareness. International guidelines recommend the use of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in managing g-NENs to evaluate subepithelial lesion size, depth, and lymph node involvement before endoscopic resection. However, the supporting evidence for EUS's role in g-NENs is scarce and limited.
methodsAccording to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was conducted on PubMed to identify studies about the role of EUS in g-NENs, including both retrospective and prospective human studies.
resultsA total of 355 studies were considered; however, only seven studies focusing on EUS's diagnostic utility in g-NENs were selected, including only 44 patients. EUS showed promise in assessing tumor characteristics critical for endoscopic resection. Nevertheless, its diagnostic accuracy remained variable across lesion types, and its impact on clinical decision-making in g-NENs lacked robust evidence. EUS contributed to subepithelial lesion staging but was underrepresented in neuroendocrine tumor-specific studies, creating a knowledge gap.
conclusionsThis review underscores the need for larger multicenter studies to validate EUS's efficacy and reliability in g-NEN management. Prospective trials are crucial to strengthen guidelines and provide clearer clinical guidance for managing these tumors.
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.