We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
META-ANALYSIS
EUS for the staging of gastric cancer: a meta-analysis.
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2011 June
BACKGROUND: The role of EUS in the locoregional staging of gastric carcinoma is undefined.
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to comprehensively review and quantitatively summarize the available evidence on the staging performance of EUS.
DESIGN: We systematically searched the MEDLINE, Cochrane, CANCERLIT, and EMBASE databases for relevant studies published until July 2010.
SETTING: Formal meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy parameters was performed by using a bivariate random-effects model.
PATIENTS: Fifty-four studies enrolling 5601 patients with gastric cancer undergoing disease staging with EUS were eligible for the meta-analysis.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: EUS staging accuracy across eligible studies was measured by computing overall sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR).
RESULTS: EUS can differentiate T1-2 from T3-4 gastric cancer with high accuracy, with overall sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and DOR of 0.86 (95% CI, 0.81-0.90), 0.91 (95% CI, 0.89-0.93), 9.8 (95% CI, 7.5-12.8), 0.15 (95% CI, 0.11-0.21), and 65 (95% CI, 41-105), respectively. In contrast, the diagnostic performance of EUS for lymph node status is less reliable, with overall sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and DOR of 0.69 (95% CI, 0.63-0.74), 0.84 (95% CI, 0.81-0.88), 4.4 (95% CI, 3.6-5.4), 0.37 (95% CI, 0.32-0.44), and 12 (95% CI, 9-16), respectively. Results regarding single T categories (including T1 substages) and Bayesian nomograms to calculate posttest probabilities for any target condition prevalence are also provided.
LIMITATIONS: Statistical heterogeneity was generally high; unfortunately, subgroup analysis did not identify a consistent source of the heterogeneity.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results support the use of EUS for the locoregional staging of gastric cancer, which can affect the therapeutic management of these patients. However, clinicians must be aware of the performance limits of this staging tool.
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to comprehensively review and quantitatively summarize the available evidence on the staging performance of EUS.
DESIGN: We systematically searched the MEDLINE, Cochrane, CANCERLIT, and EMBASE databases for relevant studies published until July 2010.
SETTING: Formal meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy parameters was performed by using a bivariate random-effects model.
PATIENTS: Fifty-four studies enrolling 5601 patients with gastric cancer undergoing disease staging with EUS were eligible for the meta-analysis.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: EUS staging accuracy across eligible studies was measured by computing overall sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR).
RESULTS: EUS can differentiate T1-2 from T3-4 gastric cancer with high accuracy, with overall sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and DOR of 0.86 (95% CI, 0.81-0.90), 0.91 (95% CI, 0.89-0.93), 9.8 (95% CI, 7.5-12.8), 0.15 (95% CI, 0.11-0.21), and 65 (95% CI, 41-105), respectively. In contrast, the diagnostic performance of EUS for lymph node status is less reliable, with overall sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and DOR of 0.69 (95% CI, 0.63-0.74), 0.84 (95% CI, 0.81-0.88), 4.4 (95% CI, 3.6-5.4), 0.37 (95% CI, 0.32-0.44), and 12 (95% CI, 9-16), respectively. Results regarding single T categories (including T1 substages) and Bayesian nomograms to calculate posttest probabilities for any target condition prevalence are also provided.
LIMITATIONS: Statistical heterogeneity was generally high; unfortunately, subgroup analysis did not identify a consistent source of the heterogeneity.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results support the use of EUS for the locoregional staging of gastric cancer, which can affect the therapeutic management of these patients. However, clinicians must be aware of the performance limits of this staging tool.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app