ArticleEndoscopy international open2016
Accuracy of polyp localization at colonoscopy.
Article in Endoscopy international open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Costs and benefits of a formal quality framework for colonoscopy: Economic evaluation.Endoscopy international open · 2024Article
- Advances in artificial intelligence and computer science for computer-aided diagnosis of colorectal polyps: current status.Endoscopy international open · 2023Review
- Review
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND STUDY
aimsAccurate documentation of lesion localization at the time of colonoscopic polypectomy is important for future surveillance, management of complications such as delayed bleeding, and for guiding surgical resection. We aimed to assess the accuracy of endoscopic localization of polyps during colonoscopy and examine variables that may influence this accuracy. PATIENTS AND
methodsWe conducted a prospective observational study in consecutive patients presenting for elective, outpatient colonoscopy. All procedures were performed by Australian certified colonoscopists. The endoscopic location of each polyp was reported by the colonoscopist at the time of resection and prospectively recorded. Magnetic endoscope imaging was used to determine polyp location, and colonoscopists were blinded to this image. Three experienced colonoscopists, blinded to the endoscopist's assessment of polyp location, independently scored the magnetic endoscope images to obtain a reference standard for polyp location (Cronbach alpha 0.98). The accuracy of colonoscopist polyp localization using this reference standard was assessed, and colonoscopist, procedural and patient variables affecting accuracy were evaluated.
resultsA total of 155 patients were enrolled and 282 polyps were resected in 95 patients by 14 colonoscopists. The overall accuracy of polyp localization was 85 % (95 % confidence interval, CI; 60 - 96 %). Accuracy varied significantly (P < 0.001) by colonic segment: caecum 100 %, ascending 77 % (CI;65 - 90), transverse 84 % (CI;75 - 92), descending 56 % (CI;32 - 81), sigmoid 88 % (CI;79 - 97), rectum 96 % (CI;90 - 101). There were significant differences in accuracy between colonoscopists (P < 0.001), and colonoscopist experience was a significant independent predictor of accuracy (OR 3.5, P = 0.028) after adjustment for patient and procedural variables.
conclusionsAccuracy of localization of polyps is imprecise and affected by position within the colon and colonoscopist, including their level of experience. Magnetic endoscope imaging may improve the localization of lesions during colonoscopy.
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.