Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21904833›Full record

Trial reportInternational journal of colorectal disease2012

Trimodal endoscopic imaging for the detection and differentiation of colorectal adenomas: a prospective single-centre clinical evaluation.

Gianluca Rotondano, Maria Antonia Bianco, Stefano Sansone, Antonio Prisco, Costantino Meucci, Maria Lucia Garofano, Livio Cipolletta

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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
  3. 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 · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Image enhanced colonoscopy: updates and prospects-a review.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2023
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Can technology increase adenoma detection rate?Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2018
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Gianluca RotondanoDivision of Gastroenterology, ASL NA3sud-Ospedale Maresca, Torre del Greco, Italy. gianluca.rotondano@virgilio.it
Maria Antonia Bianco
Stefano Sansone
Antonio Prisco
Costantino Meucci
Maria Lucia Garofano
Livio Cipolletta

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

FluorescenceLightAdenomaAdultAgedColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsFalse Negative ReactionsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedStatistics, Nonparametric

Identifiers

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.