ArticleEndoscopy international open2016
Optical diagnosis of malignant colorectal polyps: is it feasible?
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, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic accuracy of magnifying chromoendoscopy in the assessment of tumor invasion depth in early colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Techniques in coloproctology · 2023Pooled it
- Endoscopic characterization of small colonic polyps: baseline performance of experienced endoscopists is no different to that of medical students.Endoscopy international open · 2019Article
- Narrow-Band Imaging: Clinical Application in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.GE Portuguese journal of gastroenterology · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND STUDY
aimsAs colorectal cancer screening programs are being implemented worldwide, an increasing number of early (T1) cancers are being diagnosed. These cancers should be recognized during colonoscopy because they require a specific therapeutic approach. Several studies have shown that Asian experts can reliably recognize T1 cancers during colonoscopy. In daily practice, however, accurate endoscopic diagnosis of T1 cancers still seems challenging. We evaluated the performance of optical diagnosis of T1 cancers by European colonoscopy experts, general gastroenterologists and gastrointestinal fellows. PATIENTS AND
methodsWe collected endoscopic images of 43 colonic lesions: 19 T1 cancers (excluding intramucosal carcinoma) and 24 benign polyps ranging from 7 mm to 30 mm in size. Seven colonoscopy experts, 7 general gastroenterologists, and 14 gastrointestinal fellows assessed these images. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV) and positive predictive value (PPV) and their 95 % confidence intervals for optical diagnosis of T1 cancers.
resultsOverall sensitivity for correct diagnosis of T1 cancers was 60 % (95 % CI;45 - 72). Sensitivity was highest for experts (67 %: 95 %CI; 48 - 81), when compared to general gastroenterologists (53 %: 95 %CI; 37 - 69) and gastrointestinal fellows (59 %: 95 %CI;45 - 72). The overall NPV was 75 % (95 %CI;60 - 86); NPV was lowest for general gastroenterologists 72 % (95 %CI;57 - 83) vs 78 % (95 %CI;63 - 89) for experts and 75 % (95 %CI;60 - 85) for gastrointestinal fellows.
conclusionsIn this image-based study, both sensitivity for the optical diagnosis of a T1 cancer and NPV for excluding a T1 cancer were insufficient. Experts performed best with a sensitivity of 67 % and a NPV of 78 %, while the performance of fellows in the last year of training was comparable to that of experts. Our study indicates that training for endoscopic diagnosis for T1 cancers is urgently needed to ensure optimal clinical practice for treatment of these lesions.
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.