ArticleBMC gastroenterology2025
Computed tomography poorly detects gastroesophageal varices compared with endoscopy: a real-world single-center retrospective review.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundScreening esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is recommended for all cirrhotic patients at the time of diagnosis, however, non-invasive screening practices for varices have been emerging. CT scans have demonstrated high sensitivity in the detection of esophageal varices. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the sensitivity of CT scans in detecting esophageal and gastric varices when compared to the gold standard of EGD.
methodsAfter institutional board review was obtained, patients from any University of Florida- Jacksonville location with esophageal varices, gastric varices, or both seen on CT abdomen and pelvis, CT chest, CT chest and abdomen pelvis, or EGD were included (n = 470). Exclusion criteria comprised cases where medical record numbers were invalid (n = 239), if esophageal or gastric varices were not reported (n = 25), varices other than esophageal or gastric were present (n = 5) and if CT scans were performed after an EGD. 201 total patients were included in the analysis.
resultsCompared to EGD-verified varices, CT scans demonstrated a sensitivity of 38.3% (95% CI [0.312-0.457]), with scans performed within 7 days of each other improving sensitivity to 39.51% (95% CI [0.294-0.501]), and 40.1% (95% CI [0.327-0.478]), in contrasted studies. CT scans correctly detected varices in 45.90% of thrombocytopenic patients (95% CI [36.85%- 55.16%]).
conclusionAlthough this study's sensitivity differs markedly from that reported in prior literature, the findings can be understood in the context of methodological limitations. More than the absolute percentages, the observed trends highlight which patient groups may derive the greatest benefit from CT scan surveillance of varices. Overall, routine CT scans may not be surrogates for dedicated radiographic variceal screening. By presenting real-world data on variceal detection rates with CT, this study underscores the potential role of routine imaging not only in risk stratification but also in guiding resource allocation, such as identifying patients who may safely defer endoscopic evaluation versus those who warrant earlier interventions.
trial registrationRetrospectively registered.
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.