Trial reportMedicine2016
The efficacy of cap-assisted colonoscopy performed by a single endoscopist in patients after colorectal resection.
Trial report in Medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of a transparent cap is regarded as a simple method to obtain better outcomes compared with standard colonoscopy. In this study, we investigated whether cap-assisted colonoscopy can improve the quality of procedure-related outcomes in patients with a history of colorectal resection.
methodsThis study was designed as a prospective, randomized, controlled trial conducted at a single tertiary center by a single endoscopist (Kang J.). A total 183 patients after colorectal resection due to primary colorectal cancer were enrolled and 1:1 randomized to undergo either cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAP group) or standard colonoscopy (non-CAP group). The primary endpoint was the comparison of cecal intubation time between the 2 groups.
resultsThe mean cecal intubation time of the CAP group (n = 89) was significantly shorter than that of the non-CAP group (n = 89) (538 seconds vs 677 seconds, P = 0.024). In the CAP group, the endoscopist performed faster intubation than average more often compared with the non-CAP group (71.9% vs 57.3%). In regard to moving average curve, the CAP group showed a gentle slope during the learning period, while the non-CAP group showed a steep decrease.
conclusionThe cap-assisted colonoscopy could reduce cecal intubation time and achieve more frequent faster intubation compared with standard colonoscopy in patients after colorectal resection.
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.