Trial reportJournal of gastroenterology2026
Diagnostic performance of magnifying endoscopy with third-generation narrow-band imaging for early gastric cancer: post hoc analysis of a randomized trial (3G detection trial).
Trial report in Journal of gastroenterology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Conditional accuracy after lesion preselection: comment on Minakata et al.Journal of gastroenterology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn this study, we investigated the diagnostic performance of magnifying endoscopy (ME) with third-generation narrow-band imaging (3G-NBI) for early gastric cancer (EGC), primarily in patients with Helicobacter pylori eradication.
methodsThis was a post hoc analysis of a multicenter, randomized trial comparing 3G-NBI, texture and color enhancement imaging, and white-light imaging in gastric neoplasm (GN) detection. For all detected lesions, the endoscopic diagnosis of ME using 3G-NBI was compared with the pathological diagnosis. The primary analyses focused on the sensitivity and specificity of ME with 3G-NBI for EGC or non-EGC. The diagnostic performance was analyzed according to confidence level, macroscopic type, lesion size, and H. pylori infection status.
resultsThis study included 901 patients; 228 suspected GN lesions in 187 patients were analyzed. The lesions were diagnosed with EGC in 62 (27 with high confidence) and non-EGC in 166 (91 with high confidence) patients using ME with 3G-NBI and pathologically diagnosed as EGC in 61 and non-EGC in 167 patients. The overall diagnostic performance was sensitivity and specificity of 70.5% and 88.6%, respectively. The diagnostic performance of each category was as follows: (1) confidence level (high/low); sensitivity 78.1%/62.1%, specificity 97.7%/79.0%; (2) macroscopic type (elevated/flat or depressed); sensitivity 84.6%/66.7%, specificity 96.7%/86.9%; (3) lesion diameter (< 10 mm/ ≥ 10 mm); sensitivity 65.7%/76.9%, specificity 88.6%/88.9%; (4) H. pylori infection status (uninfected/previously infected/currently infected); sensitivity 50.0%/71.0%/86.7%, specificity 91.3%/88.2%/88.9%.
conclusionsThe diagnostic performance of ME with 3G-NBI for EGC was acceptable, primarily in patients with H. pylori eradication.
trial registrationThis trial was registered in jRCT (Identifier jRCT1032210213).
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.