SynthesisWorld journal of gastroenterology2014
Kudo's pit pattern classification for colorectal neoplasms: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in World journal of gastroenterology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 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
48 citing papers in PubMed.
- Characteristics of small early colorectal cancer in the non-pedunculated lesions and its relationship with the depth of invasion.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Vision language models versus machine learning models performance on polyp detection and classification in colonoscopy images.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Optical Imaging Technologies and Clinical Applications in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Outcomes of Endoscopic Resection of Circumferential Colorectal Laterally Spreading Lesions: A Western Experience.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer: What we need to know in the age of screening and magnifying endoscopy techniques.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2025Review
- Multiclassification of Colorectal Polyps from Colonoscopy Images Using AI for Early Diagnosis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Review
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Referral Biopsy Compared to Optical Biopsy in Large Non-pedunculated Colorectal Polyps.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2025Article
- Unifying terminology, reporting, and bowel preparation standards in colon capsule endoscopy: Nyborg Consensus.Endoscopy international open · 2025Article
- Water-assisted colonoscopy in inflammatory bowel diseases: From technical implications to diagnostic and therapeutic potentials.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2024Review
- The Derivation and External Validation of a Fibrosis Risk Model for Colorectal Tumours Undergoing Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Novel physiological analysis using blood flow velocity for colonic polyps: Pilot study.Endoscopy international open · 2024Article
- Accuracy of optical diagnosis with narrow band imaging in the surveillance of ulcerative colitis: a prospective study comparing Kudo, Kudo-IBD and NICE classifications.International journal of colorectal disease · 2024Article
- Precision in detecting colon lesions: A key to effective screening policy but will it improve overall outcomes?World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2024Article
- Vanek's Tumour as a Rare Cause of Dyspeptic Syndrome in a Patient with Primary Biliary Cholangitis: A Case Report.Reviews on recent clinical trials · 2024Article
- Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection, Endoscopic Mucosal Resection, and Transanal Minimally Invasive Surgery for the Management of Rectal and Anorectal Lesions: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- A step-by-step guide to approaching colon polyps.Gastroenterology and hepatology from bed to bench · 2023Article
- Mucosal imaging in colon polyps: New advances and what the future may hold.World journal of gastroenterology · 2022Review
- The role of microvesicles as biomarkers in the screening of colorectal neoplasm.Cancer medicine · 2022Article
- Sampling error in the diagnosis of colorectal cancer is associated with delay to surgery: a retrospective cohort study.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo analyze the current available evidence of Kudo's pit pattern classification for diagnosing colorectal neoplasms.
methodsA search was performed on Pubmed/Embase to identify studies reporting the outcomes of the pit pattern classification in colorectal polyps. Retrieved records were evaluated and selected by two independent investigators. The number of patients, polyps and diagnostic performance of Kudo's pit pattern classification were retrieved from suitable studies. Pooled sensitivities and specificities were calculated using fixed or random effect models according to their heterogeneity. Publication bias was evaluated using funnel plot, Egger's test, and Begg's test. Sensitivity analysis was performed by omitting one study at a time and selecting a subgroup consisting of 11 magnifying chromoendoscopy studies.
results20 eligible studies were included in which a total of 5111 colorectal lesions in 3418 patients were identified for the differentiation of neoplastic and non-neoplastic polyps. Pit pattern classification in all the studies of mucosal patterns with magnification resulted in a pooled sensitivity of 89.0% (95%CI: 85.2-91.9) and pooled specificity of 85.7% (95%CI: 81.3-89.2) and the area under the SROC curve was 0.9354. There was significant publication bias (P = 0.038 and 0.006 for sensitivity and specificity using Egger's test, P = 0.035 and 0.139 for sensitivity and specificity using Begg's test, respectively). No single study significantly affected the pooled result, and the magnifying chromoendoscopy subgroup yielded a sensitivity of 92.7% (95%CI: 89.2-95.2) and specificity of 87.3% (95%CI: 81.6-91.4).
conclusionKudo's pit pattern classification is an accurate diagnostic method for the differentiation of neoplastic colorectal lesions. Publication bias is significant in the current available literature.
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.