ArticleEndoscopy international open2015
Detection and miss rates of autofluorescence imaging of adenomatous and polypoid lesions during colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Endoscopy international open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- A prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial on artificial intelligence assisted colonoscopy for enhanced polyp detection.Scientific reports · 2024Trial
- A NIR-IIb-excited capsule endoscope enabling high-contrast fluorescence imaging via spectrally-isolated detection for early-stage gastrointestinal cancer.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2026Article
- Highlighting the Undetectable - Fluorescence Molecular Imaging in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.Molecular imaging and biology · 2023Review
- Image enhanced colonoscopy: updates and prospects-a review.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2023Review
- Mucosal imaging in colon polyps: New advances and what the future may hold.World journal of gastroenterology · 2022Review
- Enhancing polyp detection: technological advances in colonoscopy imaging.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2021Review
- Optical imaging technology in colonoscopy: Is there a role for photometric stereo?World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2020Review
- Gastrointestinal diagnosis using non-white light imaging capsule endoscopy.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2019Review
- Linked color imaging for the detection of early gastrointestinal neoplasms.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2019Review
- Can technology increase adenoma detection rate?Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2018Review
- Strategies to Increase Adenoma Detection Rates.Current treatment options in gastroenterology · 2017Review
- Flexible Gastro-intestinal Endoscopy - Clinical Challenges and Technical Achievements.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2017Review
- The efficacy of autofluorescence imaging in the diagnosis of colorectal diseases.Clinical journal of gastroenterology · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND STUDY
aimsAutofluorescence imaging (AFI) is an endoscopic imaging technique used to increase the detection of premalignant gastrointestinal lesions, and it has gradually become popular in recent years. This meta-analysis was performed to examine whether AFI provides greater efficacy in the detection of adenomatous and polypoid lesions and can even prevent the failure to detect a single adenoma or polyp. The aim of the study was to systematically review the efficacy of AFI in increasing detection rates and decreasing miss rates.
methodsPertinent articles were identified through a search of databases up to December 2013 that included patients who had undergone two same-day colonoscopies (AFI and white light endoscopy [WLE]), followed by polypectomy. Fixed and random effects models were used to detect significant differences between AFI and WLE in regard to adenoma detection rate (ADR), polyp detection rate (PDR), adenoma miss rate (AMR), polyp miss rate (PMR), and procedural time.
resultsA total of 1199 patients from six eligible studies met the inclusion criteria. No significant differences were found in ADR (odds ratio [OR] 1.01; 95 % confidence interval [95 %CI] 0.74 - 1.37), PDR (OR 0.86; 95 %CI 0.57 - 1.30), or advanced ADR (OR 1.22; 95 %CI 0.69 - 2.17). The AMR (OR 0.62; 95 %CI 0.44 - 0.86) and PMR (OR 0.64; 95 %CI 0.48 - 0.85) by AFI were significantly lower than those by WLE. The procedural time of AFI was significantly longer than that of WLE (mean 8.00 minutes; 95 %CI 1.59 - 14.41). Subgroup meta-analysis for the other characteristics was not performed because of insufficiency of the primary data.
conclusionsAFI decreases AMR and PMR significantly compared with WLE but does not improve ADR or PDR. AMR and PMR may be decreased by using AFI in flat and small lesions or when less experienced endoscopists perform the procedure.
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.