Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 366

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A systematic review of the staging performance of endoscopic ultrasound in gastro-oesophageal carcinoma

Open access
Kelly, S, Harris, K M, Berry, E, Hutton, J, Roderick, P, Cullingworth, J, Gathercole, L, Smith, M A·2001·Gut

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) may be used for preoperative staging of gastro-oesophageal carcinoma but performance values given in the literature differ. AIMS: To identify and synthesise findings from all articles on the performance of EUS in tumour, node, metastasis (TNM) staging of gastro-oesophageal carcinoma. SOURCE: Published and unpublished English language literature, 1981–1996. METHODS: Data on the staging performance of EUS were retrieved and evaluated. Summary receiver operator characteristic methodology was used for synthesis, and a summary estimate of performance, Q*, obtained. Multiple regression analysis was used to assess study validity and investigate reasons for differences in performance. RESULTS: Twenty seven primary articles were assessed in detail. Thirteen supplied results for staging oesophageal cancer, 13 for gastric cancer, and four for cancers at the gastro-oesophageal junction. For gastric T staging, Q*=0.93 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91–0.95) and for oesophageal T staging, Q*=0.89 (95% CI 0.88–0.92). For gastro-oesophageal T staging, including cancers at the gastro-oesophageal junction, Q*=0.91 (95% CI 0.89–0.93). Inclusion of cases with non-traversable stenosis was found to slightly reduce staging performance. For N staging, Q*=0.79 (95% CI 0.75–0.83). In articles that compared EUS directly with incremental computed tomography, EUS performed better. None of the variables assessed in the regression analysis was significant using a Bonferroni correction. Three variables (anatomical location, traversability, and blinding) showed strong relationships for future research and validation. CONCLUSIONS: EUS is highly effective for discrimination of stages T1 and T2 from stages T3 and T4 for primary gastro-oesophageal carcinomas. The failure rate of EUS from non-traversability of a stenotic cancer may be a limitation in some patient groups.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/gut.49.4.534

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 19 references

Cited by

See all 366

Metadata

Authors
Kelly, S., Harris, K. M., Berry, E., Hutton, J., Roderick, P., Cullingworth, J., Gathercole, L., & Smith, M. A.
Venue
Gut
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2001-10-01
Volume
49
Issue
4
Pages
534-539
ISSN
  • 0017-5749 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-3288
OpenAlex
W2096810410
Cited by
366
References
19
FWCI
3.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A systematic review of the staging performance of endoscopic ultrasound in gastro-oesophageal carcinoma. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/gut.49.4.534
The paper
Kelly, S., Harris, K. M., Berry, E., Hutton, J., Roderick, P., Cullingworth, J., Gathercole, L., & Smith, M. A. (2001). A systematic review of the staging performance of endoscopic ultrasound in gastro-oesophageal carcinoma. Gut. https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.49.4.534

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.