ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2019
Comparison of the detection of colorectal lesions in different endoscopic modalities: A network meta-analysis and systematic review.
Article in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Linked color imaging versus conventional white-light colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- The role of BMI, serum lipid profile molecules and their derivative indexes in colorectal polyps.Advances in laboratory medicine · 2024Article
- Article
- Standard screening high-definition colonoscopy without any optimization device is no longer relevant: Time to move to optimized screening colonoscopy.Endoscopy international open · 2024Article
- The Utility of Narrow-Band Imaging International Colorectal Endoscopic Classification in Predicting the Histologies of Diminutive Colorectal Polyps Using I-Scan Optical Enhancement: A Prospective Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Advanced Imaging in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Literature Review of the Current State of the Art.GE Portuguese journal of gastroenterology · 2023Review
- Factors Associated with Polyp Detection Rate in European Colonoscopy Practice: Findings of The European Colonoscopy Quality Investigation (ECQI) Group.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Electronic chromo-endoscopy: technical details and a clinical perspective.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A colonoscopy is considered to be the standard diagnostic test used to detect early colorectal lesions. Detection rates are expected to improve with optimised visualisation. A systematic review and network meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate detection efficiency in several colonoscopic modalities. Relevant articles were identified in searches of the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases. The modalities, comprising of standard-definition white light (SDWL), high-definition white light (HDWL), narrow-band imaging (NBI), autofluorescence imaging (AFI), PENTAX image enhanced technology (i-SCAN), Fuji Intelligent Color Enhancement (FICE), dye-based chromoendoscopy and novel image enhanced systems, including blue laser imaging (BLI) and linked color imaging (LCI), were compared to identify the most efficient modalities that could be used to detect colorectal lesions. Odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. As a result, 40 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Overall, in the network meta-analyses, NBI (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.04-1.58), FICE (OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.11-1.77), chromoendoscopy (OR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.22-1.93) and AFI (OR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.07-2.87) were significantly better compared with SDWL at identifying adenoma in patients, and chromoendoscopy also proved significantly superior to HDWL (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.06-1.60). In pairwise analyses, it was demonstrated that chromoendoscopy was significantly superior to HDWL at detecting the number of polyps (MD, -1.11; 95% CI, -1.46, -0.76) and flat lesions (MD, -0.30; 95% CI, -0.49, -0.10) per subject. Additionally, FICE detected a significantly greater number of subjects with polyps (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64-0.96) and NBI was significantly better at detecting the number of subjects with flat lesions (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.60-0.99) compared with HDWL. Based on the meta-analysis, NBI, FICE and AFI were significantly better compared with SDWL at detecting patients with adenoma. Additionally, chromoendoscopy was significantly better than SDWL and HDWL at detecting the number of colorectal adenoma, however additional studies are needed to confirm these findings.
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.