ArticleSurgical endoscopy2019
Operational effectiveness of three-dimensional flexible endoscopy: an ex vivo study using a new model.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Three-dimensional visualization improves the endoscopic diagnosis of superficial gastric neoplasia.BMC gastroenterology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesTwo-dimensional (2D) images lack depth information and thus provide probabilistic recognition that do not completely match the actual three-dimensional (3D) information. Here, we investigated the operability of 3D endoscopes.
methodsA 3D operation model was developed by passing 20 silk threads through upper and lower plates at 2-mm intervals in front and back rows separated by 1 mm. We evaluated accuracy and time of operating an electrosurgical knife. A successful operation was defined as pulling only a front-row thread; an unsuccessful operation was defined as pulling no thread (miss) or simultaneously pulling front- and back-row threads. Endoscopists (four experts, six trainees) repeated the operation under 2D and 3D conditions until individually accumulating 10 successful attempts under each condition.
resultsOperation accuracy was significantly higher for 3D compared with 2D in all endoscopists (88.5% vs. 61.3%; p < 0.01) and in both experience groups (trainees: 84.5% vs. 61.2%; experts: 95.2% vs. 61.5%; both p < 0.01). Operation time was significantly shorter for 3D compared with 2D in all endoscopists (12.5 ± 4.1 s vs. 14.8 ± 4.7 s; p < 0.01) and in both experience groups (trainees: 12.8 ± 4.2 s vs. 15.2 ± 4.9 s; experts: 12.1 ± 4.0 s vs. 14.3 ± 4.3 s; both p < 0.01). DISCUSSION: Compared with 2D endoscopy, 3D endoscopy significantly improved operation accuracy and shortened operation time, suggesting that 3D endoscopy enables accurate operation by depth information, aiding spatial recognition.
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.