SynthesisNeurogastroenterology and motility2026
Diagnostic Performance and Reproducibility of the CARS Endoscopic Score in Achalasia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Neurogastroenterology and motility, 2026. 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
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimAchalasia's insidious onset and nonspecific presentation contribute to diagnostic delays, often exceeding 20 months from symptom onset to confirmation. The four-domain CARS endoscopic score (Content, Anatomy, Resistance, Stasis) may expedite risk stratification. We performed a meta-analysis to assess diagnostic accuracy, interobserver reliability, and treatment-monitoring potential.
methodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov through June 2025. Study-level 2 × 2 contingency data were then synthesized using bivariate random-effects models to derive pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value, generate HSROC curves, and construct Fagan nomograms at 5% and 25% pre-test probabilities.
resultsWe screened 49 studies and ultimately included five studies encompassing 1112 patients with a mean age of 54.5 years and overall achalasia prevalence of 31.7%. For a CARS threshold ≥ 4, pooled sensitivity was 0.73 (95% CI 0.69-0.78), specificity 1.00 (0.99-1.00), positive predictive value 0.99, and negative predictive value 0.88; employing a dual-threshold strategy (CARS = 0 to rule out; ≥ 4 to rule in) further improved sensitivity to 0.95 (0.92-0.98), specificity to 0.99 (0.97-1.00), positive predictive value to 0.99, and negative predictive value to 0.96. The HSROC AUC approached 0.99, and moreover interobserver agreement was almost perfect with a pooled Cohen's κ = 0.84 (95% CI 0.76-0.91).
conclusionsCARS reliably stratifies patients into low-risk (CARS = 0), moderate-risk (1-3), and high-risk (≥ 4) groups facilitating deferred testing, targeted manometry, or prompt invasive evaluation while demonstrating excellent interobserver agreement, underscoring its clinical utility.
trial registrationPROSPERO number: CRD420251007005.
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.