ArticleWorld journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy2011
Regular arrangement of collecting venules: Does patient age affect its accuracy?
Article in World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predicting Helicobacter pylori infection from endoscopic features.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2024Article
- Association between regular arrangement of collecting venules and Helicobacter pylori status in routine endoscopy.BMC gastroenterology · 2021Article
- Assessment ofBMJ open gastroenterology · 2021Article
- Kyoto classification in patients who developed multiple gastric carcinomas afterWorld journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2020Article
- A systematic review of the role of non-magnified endoscopy for the assessment ofEndoscopy international open · 2020Review
- Irregular arrangement of collecting venules (IRAC) provides a critical endoscopic insight inBiomedical reports · 2013Article
- The endoscopic predictors ofTherapeutic advances in gastrointestinal endoscopyArticle
- Regular arrangement of collecting venules as a predictor ofTherapeutic advances in gastrointestinal endoscopyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo address the diagnostic value of the regular arrangement of collecting venules (RAC) among old age patients.
methodsA total of 390 consecutive patients whose Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) status was known and who received upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, were retrospectively studied for the presence or absence of RAC as well as gastric mucosal atrophy. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy of RAC to detect normal gastric mucosa were assessed and were compared among two different age groups of patients.
resultsThe mean age ± standard deviation (SD) of included patients (n = 390), was 62.9 ± 13 years. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy of RAC to detect normal gastric mucosa were 91.7%, 66.1%, 18.8%, 99% and 68.1% respectively. Although the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy of RAC among patients < 60 years (n = 139) was 94.7%, 71.2%, 46.2%, 98.1%and 76.1%, respectively, it was 80%, 64.3%, 5.1%, 93% and 64.6%, respectively, among patients ≥ 60 years (n = 251). Younger Patients (< 60 years), have highly significant rates of RAC sensitivity, positive predictive value, and accuracy (P ≤ 0.001, ≤ 0.001 and ≤ 0.02, respectively). Older patients had highly significant rates of H. pylori infection and gastric mucosal atrophy (P ≤ 0.01).
conclusionAlthough RAC is a valuable sign for real-time identification of normal gastric mucosa, its accuracy seems to be affected by the patient's age.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.