Evidence mapPaperPMID 37355271Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2023

Diagnostic accuracy of endometrial sampling tests for detecting endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Noha Abdelsattar Sakna, Marwa Elgendi, Mohamed Hamed Salama, Ahmed Zeinhom, Somia Labib, Ashraf Fawzy Nabhan

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06672341 (A Prospective, Open, Observational Clinical Study on Endometrial Cytology and Cervical Methylation Testing for Screening and Evaluating Fertility-Sparing Treatment in Endometrial Cancer), which is not on this map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
6.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT06672341 not yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

A Prospective, Open, Observational Clinical Study on Endometrial Cytology and Cervical Methylation Testing for Screening and Evaluating Fertility-Sparing Treatment in Endometrial Cancer

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorYulan RenRan2024 to 2026Enrolled200ConditionsEndometrial Cancer, Methylation, Cytology, Fertility PreservationArmsEndometrial Cytology Testing, Cervical Methylation Testing
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Observational
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Noha Abdelsattar SaknaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.
Marwa ElgendiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.
Mohamed Hamed SalamaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.
Ahmed ZeinhomDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.
Somia LabibDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.
Ashraf Fawzy NabhanDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt anabhan@med.asu.edu.eg.ORCID 0000-0003-4572-2210
Ain Shams University · EG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of different endometrial sampling tests for detecting endometrial carcinoma.

designSystematic review and meta-analysis of studies of diagnostic accuracy. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Library, MEDLINE/PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science and Scopus, from the date of inception of the databases to 18 January 2023. Additionally, the reference lists of included studies and other systematic reviews were thoroughly searched. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included published cross-sectional studies that evaluated any endometrial sampling test (index tests) in women (participants) with clinical suspicion of endometrial carcinoma (target condition) in comparison with histopathology of hysterectomy specimens (reference standard). We excluded case-control and case series studies. No restrictions on language or date of publication were applied. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers extracted study data and assessed study quality using the revised quality assessment tool for diagnostic accuracy studies (QUADAS-2). We used bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis and presented the results in a summary receiver operating characteristic curve. We assessed the certainty of evidence as recommended by the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) approach.

resultsTwelve studies (1607 participants), published between 1986 and 2022, contributed data to the meta-analysis results. Seven studies were judged to be at a low risk of bias in all domains and all studies had low applicability concerns. The most studied index tests were Pipelle and conventional dilation and curettage (D&C). The sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio and negative likelihood ratio (95% CIs) for Pipelle were 0.774 (0.565 to 0.900), 0.985 (0.927 to 0.997), 97.000 (14.000 to 349.000) and 0.241 (0.101 to 0.442) and for conventional D&C were 0.880 (0.281 to 0.993), 0.984 (0.956 to 0.995), 59.300 (14.200 to 153.000) and 0.194 (0.007 to 0.732), respectively.

conclusionHigh certainty evidence indicates that endometrial sampling using Pipelle or conventional D&C is accurate in diagnosing endometrial cancer. Studies assessing other endometrial sampling tests were sparse. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: https://osf.io/h8e9z.

Indexed as

Endometrial NeoplasmsEndometriumCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansROC CurveSensitivity and Specificitygynaecological oncologygynaecologysystematic review

Identifiers

PMID37355271
PMCPMC10314649
OpenAlexW4381943620

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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 Socratic graph.