Trial reportPloS one2014
Assessment of still and moving images in the diagnosis of gastric lesions using magnifying narrow-band imaging in a prospective multicenter trial.
Trial report in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interobserver agreement in detection of "white globe appearance" and the ability of educational lectures to improve the diagnosis of gastric lesions.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesMagnifying narrow-band imaging (M-NBI) is more accurate than white-light imaging for diagnosing small gastric cancers. However, it is uncertain whether moving M-NBI images have additional effects in the diagnosis of gastric cancers compared with still images.
designA prospective multicenter cohort study.
methodsTo identify the additional benefits of moving M-NBI images by comparing the diagnostic accuracy of still images only with that of both still and moving images. Still and moving M-NBI images of 40 gastric lesions were obtained by an expert endoscopist prior to this prospective multicenter cohort study. Thirty-four endoscopists from ten different Japanese institutions participated in the prospective multicenter cohort study. Each study participant was first tested using only still M-NBI images (still image test), then tested 1 month later using both still and moving M-NBI images (moving image test). The main outcome was a difference in the diagnostic accuracy of cancerous versus noncancerous lesions between the still image test and the moving image test.
resultsThirty-four endoscopists were analysed. There were no significant difference of cancerous versus noncancerous lesions between still and moving image tests in the diagnostic accuracy (59.9% versus 61.5%), sensitivity (53.4% versus 55.9%), and specificity (67.0% versus 67.6%). And there were no significant difference in the diagnostic accuracy between still and moving image tests of demarcation line (65.4% versus 65.5%), microvascular pattern (56.7% versus 56.9%), and microsurface pattern (48.1% versus 50.9%). Diagnostic accuracy showed no significant difference between the still and moving image tests in the subgroups of endoscopic findings of the lesions.
conclusionsThe addition of moving M-NBI images to still M-NBI images does not improve the diagnostic accuracy for gastric lesions. It is reasonable to concentrate on taking sharp still M-NBI images during endoscopic observation and use them for diagnosis.
trial registrationUmin.ac.jp UMIN-CTR000008048.
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.