Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21419769›Full record

Trial reportGastroenterology2011

Endoscopic trimodal imaging detects colonic neoplasia as well as standard video endoscopy.

Teaco Kuiper, Frank J C van den Broek, Anton H Naber, Ellert J van Soest, Pieter Scholten, Rosalie Ch Mallant-Hent, Jan van den Brande, Jeroen M Jansen, Arnoud H A M van Oijen, Willem A Marsman and 3 more

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Gastroenterology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Comparison of diagnostic efficacy between AFI, NBI, and AFI combined with NBI for colonic cancers: A meta-analysis.Saudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology Association
    Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Review
  9. Image enhanced colonoscopy: updates and prospects-a review.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2023
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Can technology increase adenoma detection rate?Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2018
    Review
  14. Advances in image enhancement in colonoscopy for detection of adenomas.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2017
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Teaco KuiperDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Frank J C van den Broek
Anton H Naber
Ellert J van Soest
Pieter Scholten
Rosalie Ch Mallant-Hent
Jan van den Brande
Jeroen M Jansen
Arnoud H A M van Oijen
Willem A Marsman
Jacques J G H M Bergman
Paul Fockens
Evelien Dekker

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND &

aimsEndoscopic trimodal imaging (ETMI) is a novel endoscopic technique that combines high-resolution endoscopy (HRE), autofluorescence imaging (AFI), and narrow-band imaging (NBI) that has only been studied in academic settings. We performed a randomized, controlled trial in a nonacademic setting to compare ETMI with standard video endoscopy (SVE) in the detection and differentiation of colorectal lesions.

methodsThe study included 234 patients scheduled to receive colonoscopy who were randomly assigned to undergo a colonoscopy in tandem with either ETMI or SVE. In the ETMI group (n=118), first examination was performed using HRE, followed by AFI. In the other group, both examinations were performed using SVE (n=116). In the ETMI group, detected lesions were differentiated using AFI and NBI.

resultsIn the ETMI group, 87 adenomas were detected in the first examination (with HRE), and then 34 adenomas were detected during second inspection (with AFI). In the SVE group, 79 adenomas were detected during the first inspection, and then 33 adenomas were detected during the second inspection. Adenoma detection rates did not differ significantly between the 2 groups (ETMI: 1.03 vs SVE: 0.97, P=.360). The adenoma miss-rate was 29% for HRE and 28% for SVE. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of NBI in differentiating adenomas from nonadenomatous lesions were 87%, 63%, and 75%, respectively; corresponding values for AFI were 90%, 37%, and 62%, respectively.

conclusionsIn a nonacademic setting, ETMI did not improve the detection rate for adenomas compared with SVE. NBI and AFI each differentiated colonic lesions with high levels of sensitivity but low levels of specificity.

Indexed as

Video RecordingAdenomaAgedBiopsyCarcinomaChi-Square DistributionColonColonic PolypsColonoscopesColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsDiagnosis, DifferentialFemaleFluorescenceHumansLogistic Models

Identifiers

PMID21419769

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.