ArticleEndoscopy international open2026
Confocal laser endomicroscopy for upper gastrointestinal neoplasia: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Endoscopy international open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and study aims: Probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy (pCLE) enables real-time, in vivo microscopic evaluation of upper gastrointestinal mucosa. Although many studies have evaluated its diagnostic performance, comprehensive synthesis of its accuracy, safety, and clinical utility remains limited. Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies assessing diagnostic accuracy, safety, and clinical utility of pCLE for detecting dysplasia or neoplasia in the upper gastrointestinal tract. MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to October 2024 for studies comparing pCLE with histopathology. Study quality was assessed using QUADAS-2. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were estimated using a bivariate random-effects model. Safety outcomes and clinical impact were narratively summarized. Results: Thirty-three studies (n = 2,350 patients) were included: 15 focused on esophageal, 16 on gastric, and two on mixed upper gastrointestinal lesions. For esophageal neoplasia, pooled sensitivity was 0.89 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84-0.92) and specificity was 0.79 (95% CI 0.68-0.87). For gastric neoplasia, pooled sensitivity was 0.89 (95% CI 0.83-0.93) and specificity was 0.95 (95% CI 0.92-0.96). In selected clinical settings, such as Barrett's esophagus with subtle mucosal and no discrete macroscopic lesions, adjunctive pCLE altered real-time therapeutic management in up to 69.2% of cases (9/13). Only minor adverse events, such as transient bleeding or fluorescein-related reactions, were reported. Conclusions: pCLE is a safe and accurate adjunct to standard upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, particularly when lesion conspicuity is low or histologic confirmation is important. However, pooled estimates, particularly the high specificity for gastric lesions, should be interpreted cautiously due to potential small-study effects.
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.