SynthesisBMJ open2023
Diagnostic accuracy of endometrial sampling tests for detecting endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
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.
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.
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.
A Prospective, Open, Observational Clinical Study on Endometrial Cytology and Cervical Methylation Testing for Screening and Evaluating Fertility-Sparing Treatment in Endometrial Cancer
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tamoxifen Use and Risk of Uterine Diseases in Young Women With Breast Cancer.Obstetrics and gynecology · 2026Article
- Review
- Advances in endometrial cancer screening: a comprehensive review of current methods and emerging technologies.International journal of clinical oncology · 2026Review
- Risk factors and predictive modeling for occult endometrial cancer in women with atypical hyperplasia: a retrospective study.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2026Article
- Article
- PDS5B positively regulates PTEN by binding to YTHDC1 to inhibit the malignant progression of endometrial carcinoma.Discover oncology · 2025Article
- Diagnostic Efficiency of Endometrial Sampling Methods and Risk Factors for Endometrial Carcinoma and Precursor Lesions in Premenopausal Women.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Hysteroscopy vs. Vabra in Endometrial Cancer Diagnosis: A Systematic Review of the Literature.Cancers · 2025Review
- Performance of the WID-qEC test to detect uterine cancers in black women with abnormal uterine bleeding: A prospective observational cohort study in Ghana.International journal of cancer · 2025Observational
- A novel predictive model of lymphovascular space invasion in early-stage endometrial cancer.Turkish journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
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.