ArticleInternational journal of general medicine2026
Comparative Evaluation of Endoscopic Ultrasonography and Multi-Slice Spiral CT in Diagnosing Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors: A Retrospective Study.
Article in International journal of general medicine, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the accuracy and clinical value of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) in the diagnosis of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST). Methods: This single-center retrospective study analyzed 100 GIST patients at a tertiary hospital (2022.12-2025.02). Sample size was justified by pre-experimental results (EUS sensitivity 90%, MSCT 80%, α=0.05, β=0.2) to detect ≥10% diagnostic efficacy difference. All patients underwent preoperative EUS and multi-slice spiral computed tomography (MSCT) scans. The diagnostic results of EUS, MSCT, and postoperative pathology were compared. The examination time and detection status were recorded, and diagnostic performance metrics such as sensitivity and specificity, as well as the accuracy rates of localization and qualitative diagnosis, were calculated. Additionally, the imaging characteristics of EUS were analyzed. Results: EUS was significantly superior to MSCT in sensitivity (94.92% vs 88.14%), specificity (87.80% vs 73.17%) and localization accuracy (90.00% vs 68.00%) (p<0.05). Although the EUS examination time was longer (10.11 ± 2.37 vs 5.96 ± 1.85 min, P<0.05), However, its ability to recognize the typical features of GIST (hypoechoic mass, clear boundary) is stronger, and the misdiagnosis rate is lower. Conclusion: Clinical decisions should prioritize EUS for initial evaluation of suspected submucosal GISTs, while reserving MSCT for assessing tumor extent and metastasis, balancing diagnostic efficacy with examination time considerations.
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.