ArticleWorld journal of gastroenterology2013
Optical diagnosis of colorectal polyps using high-definition i-scan: an educational experience.
Article in World journal of gastroenterology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Trial
- From Staining Techniques to Artificial Intelligence: A Review of Colorectal Polyps Characterization.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Review
- Advanced Imaging in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Literature Review of the Current State of the Art.GE Portuguese journal of gastroenterology · 2023Review
- Image enhanced colonoscopy: updates and prospects-a review.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2023Review
- Quest for the best endoscopic imaging modality for computer-assisted colonic polyp staging.World journal of gastroenterology · 2019Article
- Detection and characterization of colorectal polyps using high-definition white light and i-Scan: Evidence-based consensus recommendations using a modified Delphi process.United European gastroenterology journal · 2018Article
- Optical diagnosis of malignant colorectal polyps: is it feasible?Endoscopy international open · 2016Article
- Advanced gastrointestinal endoscopic imaging for inflammatory bowel diseases.World journal of gastroenterology · 2016Review
- Partial Oxygen Pressure Affects the Expression of Prognostic Biomarkers HIF-1 Alpha, Ki67, and CK20 in the Microenvironment of Colorectal Cancer Tissue.Oxidative medicine and cellular longevity · 2016Article
- From the surface to the single cell: Novel endoscopic approaches in inflammatory bowel disease.World journal of gastroenterology · 2015Review
- High-definition endoscopy with digital chromoendoscopy for histologic prediction of distal colorectal polyps.BMC gastroenterology · 2015Article
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
aimTo examine performances regarding prediction of polyp histology using high-definition (HD) i-scan in a group of endoscopists with varying levels of experience.
methodsWe used a digital library of HD i-scan still images, comprising twin pictures (surface enhancement and tone enhancement), collected at our university hospital. We defined endoscopic features of adenomatous and non-adenomatous polyps, according to the following parameters: color, surface pattern and vascular pattern. We familiarized the participating endoscopists on optical diagnosis of colorectal polyps using a 20-min didactic training session. All endoscopists were asked to evaluate an image set of 50 colorectal polyps with regard to polyp histology. We classified the diagnoses into high confidence (i.e., cases in which the endoscopist could assign a diagnosis with certainty) and low confidence diagnoses (i.e., cases in which the endoscopist preferred to send the polyp for formal histology). Mean sensitivity, specificity and accuracy per endoscopist/image were computed and differences between groups tested using independent-samples t tests. High vs low confidence diagnoses were compared using the paired-samples t test.
resultsEleven endoscopists without previous experience on optical diagnosis evaluated a total of 550 images (396 adenomatous, 154 non-adenomatous). Mean sensitivity, specificity and accuracy for diagnosing adenomas were 79.3%, 85.7% and 81.1%, respectively. No significant differences were found between gastroenterologists and trainees regarding performances of optical diagnosis (mean accuracy 78.0% vs 82.9%, P = 0.098). Diminutive lesions were predicted with a lower mean accuracy as compared to non-diminutive lesions (74.2% vs 93.1%, P = 0.008). A total of 446 (81.1%) diagnoses were made with high confidence. High confidence diagnoses corresponded to a significantly higher mean accuracy than low confidence diagnoses (84.0% vs 64.3%, P = 0.008). A total of 319 (58.0%) images were evaluated as having excellent quality. Considering excellent quality images in conjunction with high confidence diagnosis, overall accuracy increased to 92.8%.
conclusionAfter a single training session, endoscopists with varying levels of experience can already provide optical diagnosis with an accuracy of 84.0%.
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.