| Title |
Comparison of the diagnostic efficacy of white light endoscopy and magnifying endoscopy with narrow band imaging for early gastric cancer: a meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Gastric Cancer, April 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10120-015-0500-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Qiang Zhang, Fei Wang, Zhen-Yu Chen, Zhen Wang, Fa-Chao Zhi, Si-De Liu, Yang Bai |
| Abstract |
Magnifying endoscopy with narrow band imaging (ME-NBI) is widely used in gastroscopy, especially in the diagnosis of early gastric cancer. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the diagnostic efficacy of white light imaging (WLI) and that of ME-NBI for early gastric cancer. PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify studies which met the inclusion criteria. A random-effects model was used to calculate overall sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) to assess the diagnostic efficacy of WLI and ME-NBI in early gastric cancer. Sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the stability of the results. Ten studies met the inclusion criteria, and included 1724 patients and 2153 lesions. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and AUC for the diagnosis of early gastric cancer using WLI were 0.48 [95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.39-0.57; I (2) = 78.6 %], 0.67 (95 % CI 0.62-0.71; I (2) = 81.9 %), and 0.62, respectively. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and AUC using ME-NBI were 0.83 (95 % CI 0.79-0.87; I (2) = 79.8 %), 0.96 (95 % CI 0.95-0.97; I (2) = 89.3 %), and 0.96, respectively. The studies showed a high degree of heterogeneity. Further sensitivity analysis was mainly performed for the studies of small lesions (mean size 10 mm or less) and the studies with a the score of 12 points or greater in the literature quality assessment, and the AUCs for ME-NBI for diagnosis of early gastric cancer were between 0.93 and 0.98, which suggested that the diagnostic value was still high and stable. Compared with WLI, ME-NBI can effectively diagnose early gastric cancer. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 51 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 12% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 9 | 18% |
| Unknown | 21 | 41% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 33% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Unknown | 23 | 45% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 June 2018.
All research outputs
#15,535,385
of 23,088,369 outputs
Outputs from Gastric Cancer
#320
of 603 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,923
of 265,154 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Gastric Cancer
#4
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,088,369 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 603 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 265,154 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.