↓ Skip to main content

Endoscopic imaging modalities for diagnosing invasion depth of superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Gastroenterology, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Endoscopic imaging modalities for diagnosing invasion depth of superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
BMC Gastroenterology, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12876-017-0574-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ryu Ishihara, Noriko Matsuura, Noboru Hanaoka, Sachiko Yamamoto, Tomofumi Akasaka, Yoji Takeuchi, Koji Higashino, Noriya Uedo, Hiroyasu Iishi

Abstract

Diagnosis of cancer invasion depth is crucial for selecting the optimal treatment strategy in patients with gastrointestinal cancers. We conducted a meta-analysis to determine the utilities of different endoscopic modalities for diagnosing invasion depth of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). We conducted a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, and Ichushi databases to identify studies evaluating the use of endoscopic modalities for diagnosing invasion depth of superficial esophageal SCC. We excluded case reports, review articles, and studies in which the total number of patients or lesions was <10. Fourteen studies fulfilled our criteria. Summary receiver operating characteristic curves showed that magnified endoscopy (ME) and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) performed better than non-ME. ME was associated with high sensitivity and a very low (0.08) negative likelihood ratio (NLR), while EUS had high specificity and a very high (17.6) positive likelihood ratio (PLR) for the diagnosis of epithelial or lamina propria cancers. NLR <0.1 provided strong evidence to rule out disease, and PLR >10 provided strong evidence of a positive diagnosis. EUS and ME perform better than non-ME for diagnosing invasion depth in SCC. ME has a low NLR and is a reliable modality for confirming deep invasion of cancer, while EUS has a high PLR and can reliably confirm that the cancer is limited to the surface. Effective use of these two modalities should be considered in patients with SCC. PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews); number 42015024462 .

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 16%
Student > Bachelor 4 16%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 12%
Student > Postgraduate 3 12%
Other 8 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 80%
Unspecified 2 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Mathematics 1 4%
Engineering 1 4%
Other 0 0%

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 03 February 2017.
All research outputs
#6,860,706
of 9,003,777 outputs
Outputs from BMC Gastroenterology
#502
of 710 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,946
of 309,116 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Gastroenterology
#9
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,003,777 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 710 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 309,116 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.