Trial reportInternational journal of colorectal disease2012
Trimodal endoscopic imaging for the detection and differentiation of colorectal adenomas: a prospective single-centre clinical evaluation.
Trial report in International journal of colorectal disease, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- 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 AssociationPooled it
- Comparative Performance of Image-Enhanced Endoscopy for Adenoma and Sessile Serrated Lesion Detection: A Network Meta-Analysis.Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2026Review
- Review
- Image enhanced colonoscopy: updates and prospects-a review.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2023Review
- Recent Advances and the Potential for Clinical Use of Autofluorescence Detection of Extra-Ophthalmic Tissues.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Comparison of the detection of colorectal lesions in different endoscopic modalities: A network meta-analysis and systematic review.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2019Article
- Can technology increase adenoma detection rate?Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2018Review
- Monitoring the premalignant potential of Barrett's oesophagus'.Frontline gastroenterology · 2016Review
- The efficacy of autofluorescence imaging in the diagnosis of colorectal diseases.Clinical journal of gastroenterology · 2016Review
- Detection and miss rates of autofluorescence imaging of adenomatous and polypoid lesions during colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Endoscopy international open · 2015Article
- Magnified and enhanced computed virtual chromoendoscopy in gastric neoplasia: a feasibility study.World journal of gastroenterology · 2013Article
- Ratio images and ultraviolet C excitation in autofluorescence imaging of neoplasms of the human colon.Journal of biomedical optics · 2013Article
- Back-to-back comparison of auto-fluorescence imaging (AFI) versus high resolution white light colonoscopy for adenoma detection.BMC gastroenterology · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study is to evaluate an endoscopic trimodal imaging (ETMI) system (high resolution, autofluorescence, and NBI) in the detection and differentiation of colorectal adenomas.
methodsA prospective randomised trial of tandem colonoscopies was carried out using the Olympus XCF-FH260AZI system. Each colonic segment was examined twice for lesions, once with HRE and once with AFI, in random order per patient. All detected lesions were assessed with NBI for pit pattern and with AFI for colour. All lesions were removed and sent for histology. Any lesion identified on the second examination was considered as missed by the first examination. Outcome measures are adenoma miss rates of AFI and HRE, and diagnostic accuracy of NBI and AFI for differentiating neoplastic from non-neoplastic lesions.
resultsNinety-four patients underwent colonoscopy with ETMI (47 in each group). Among 47 patients examined with AFI first, 31 adenomas in 15 patients were detected initially [detection rate 0.66 (0.52-0.75)]. Subsequent HRE inspection identified six additional adenomas. Among 47 patients examined with HRE first, 29 adenomas in 14 patients were detected initially [detection rate 0.62 (0.53-0.79)]. Successive AFI yielded seven additional adenomas. Adenoma miss rates of AFI and HRE were 14% and 16.2%, respectively (p = 0.29). Accuracy of AFI alone for differentiation was lower than NBI (63% vs. 80%, p < 0.001). Combined use of AFI and NBI achieved improved accuracy for differentiation (84%), showing a trend for superiority compared with NBI alone (p = 0.064).
conclusionsAFI did not significantly reduce the adenoma miss rate compared with HRE. AFI alone had a disappointing accuracy for adenoma differentiation, which could be improved by combination of AFI and NBI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21904833What 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.