ArticleBMC gastroenterology2025
Diagnostic accuracy and influencing factors of microprobe endoscopic ultrasound for gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions: a multicenter retrospective study.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- High-Frequency Miniprobe Endoscopic Ultrasonography Across the Gastrointestinal Tract.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Development and validation of an interpretable predictive model for mismatch between endoscopic ultrasonography and histopathological diagnosis in colorectal subepithelial lesions: a retrospective single-center study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Multimodal artificial intelligence for subepithelial lesion classification and characterization: a multicenter comparative study (with video).BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMicroprobe endoscopic ultrasonography (MEUS) has been widely adopted in primary hospitals due to its affordability, ease of use, and simple operation. This study aims to assess the diagnostic accuracy of MEUS in classifying gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions (SELs), identify key influencing factors, and explore strategies for improvement.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on 855 patients with histopathologically confirmed SELs across five Chinese hospitals. The overall diagnostic accuracy (DA) of MEUS for SELs was calculated. Independent factors were identified using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses, followed by subgroup analysis.
resultsAmong 896 lesions across 31 SEL types, the overall DA was 70.31%. Non-gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) and non-neuroendocrine tumor (NET) lesions, along with gastric location, were identified as risk factors for lower diagnostic accuracy, while rectal location was protective. In the subgroup analysis, gastric leiomyomas had a DA of 9.85% with 99.17% incorrectly classified as GISTs, compared to 94.78% for gastric GISTs, 84.24% for gastric NETs, and 31.2% for other lesions. Lesions with inhomogeneous echoes were 20 times more likely than those with homogeneous echoes to be diagnosed as gastric GISTs compared to gastric leiomyoma. Additionally, the inhomogeneous echo patterns of gastric GISTs were characterized by hyperechogenic spots in 93.67%, marginal halos in 18.99%, and cystic changes in 13.92%.
conclusionMEUS is effective for classifying SELs, although differentiating between gastric GISTs and leiomyomas remains challenging. Improved assessment of echo heterogeneity and expanded knowledge of atypical and rare cases may enhance 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.