Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25954107›Full record

Trial reportWorld journal of gastroenterology2015

Improved specimen adequacy using jumbo biopsy forceps in patients with Barrett's esophagus.

Jan Martinek, Jana Maluskova, Magdalena Stefanova, Inna Tuckova, Stepan Suchanek, Zuzana Vackova, Jana Krajciova, Marek Kollar, Miroslav Zavoral, Julius Spicak

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in World journal of gastroenterology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
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

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jan MartinekJan Martinek, Zuzana Vackova, Jana Krajciova, Julius Spicak, Department of Hepatogastroenterology, Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, 14021 Prague, Czech Republic.
Jana MaluskovaJan Martinek, Zuzana Vackova, Jana Krajciova, Julius Spicak, Department of Hepatogastroenterology, Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, 14021 Prague, Czech Republic.
Magdalena StefanovaJan Martinek, Zuzana Vackova, Jana Krajciova, Julius Spicak, Department of Hepatogastroenterology, Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, 14021 Prague, Czech Republic.
Inna TuckovaJan Martinek, Zuzana Vackova, Jana Krajciova, Julius Spicak, Department of Hepatogastroenterology, Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, 14021 Prague, Czech Republic.
Stepan SuchanekJan Martinek, Zuzana Vackova, Jana Krajciova, Julius Spicak, Department of Hepatogastroenterology, Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, 14021 Prague, Czech Republic.
Zuzana VackovaJan Martinek, Zuzana Vackova, Jana Krajciova, Julius Spicak, Department of Hepatogastroenterology, Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, 14021 Prague, Czech Republic.
Jana KrajciovaJan Martinek, Zuzana Vackova, Jana Krajciova, Julius Spicak, Department of Hepatogastroenterology, Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, 14021 Prague, Czech Republic.
Marek KollarJan Martinek, Zuzana Vackova, Jana Krajciova, Julius Spicak, Department of Hepatogastroenterology, Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, 14021 Prague, Czech Republic.
Miroslav ZavoralJan Martinek, Zuzana Vackova, Jana Krajciova, Julius Spicak, Department of Hepatogastroenterology, Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, 14021 Prague, Czech Republic.
Julius SpicakJan Martinek, Zuzana Vackova, Jana Krajciova, Julius Spicak, Department of Hepatogastroenterology, Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, 14021 Prague, Czech Republic.
Institute of Clinical and Experimental Medicine · CZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo assess the sampling quality of four different forceps (three large capacity and one jumbo) in patients with Barrett's esophagus.

methodsThis was a prospective, single-blind study. A total of 37 patients with Barrett's esophagus were enrolled. Targeted or random biopsies with all four forceps were obtained from each patient using a diagnostic endoscope during a single endoscopy. The following forceps were tested: A: FB-220K disposable large capacity; B: BI01-D3-23 reusable large capacity; C: GBF-02-23-180 disposable large capacity; and jumbo: disposable Radial Jaw 4 jumbo. The primary outcome measurement was specimen adequacy, defined as a well-oriented biopsy sample 2 mm or greater with the presence of muscularis mucosa.

resultsA total of 436 biopsy samples were analyzed. We found a significantly higher proportion of adequate biopsy samples with jumbo forceps (71%) (P < 0.001 vs forceps A: 26%, forceps B: 17%, and forceps C: 18%). Biopsies with jumbo forceps had the largest diameter (median 2.4 mm) (P < 0.001 vs forceps A: 2 mm, forceps B: 1.6 mm, and forceps C: 2mm). There was a trend for higher diagnostic yield per biopsy with jumbo forceps (forceps A: 0.20, forceps B: 0.22, forceps C: 0.27, and jumbo: 0.28). No complications related to specimen sampling were observed with any of the four tested forceps.

conclusionJumbo biopsy forceps, when used with a diagnostic endoscope, provide more adequate specimens as compared to large-capacity forceps in patients with Barrett's esophagus.

Indexed as

Surgical InstrumentsAdultAgedBarrett EsophagusBiopsyCzech RepublicEquipment DesignEsophagoscopyEsophagusFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMucous MembranePredictive Value of TestsProspective StudiesBarrett’s esophagusBarrett’s esophagus-related neoplasiaBiopsy forcepsJumbo forcepsSpecimen adequacy

Identifiers

PMID25954107
PMCPMC4419074
OpenAlexW561893492

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.