ArticleFrontline gastroenterology2019
Multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing standard and high resolution optical technologies in colorectal cancer screening.
Article in Frontline gastroenterology, 2019. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Enhancing polyp detection: technological advances in colonoscopy imaging.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesThe UK bowel cancer screening programme (BCSP) has been established for the early detection of colorectal cancer offering colonoscopy to patients screened positive by faecal occult blood tests. In this multisite, prospective, randomised controlled trial, we aimed to compare the performance of Standard Definition Olympus Lucera (SD-OL) with Scope Guide and the High Definition Pentax HiLine (HD-PHL). PATIENTS AND
methodsSubjects undergoing a colonoscopy as part of the UK National BCSP at four UK sites were randomised to an endoscopy list run using either SD-OL or HD-PHL. Primary endpoints were polyp and adenoma detection rate (PDR and ADR, respectively) as well as polyp size, morphology and histology characteristics.
results262 subjects (168 males, mean age 66.3±4.3 years) were colonoscoped (133 patients with HD-PHL while 129 with SD-OL). PDR and ADR were comparable within the two optical systems. The HD-PHL group resulted in a PDR 55.6% and ADR 43.6%; the SD-OL group had PDR 56.6% and ADR 45.7%. HD-PHL was significantly superior to SD-OL in detection of flat adenomas (18.6% vs 5.2%, p<0.001), but not detection of pedunculated or sessile polyps. Patient comfort, use of sedation and endoscopist perception of procedural difficulty resulted similar despite the use of Scope Guide with SD-OL.
conclusionPDR and ADR were not significantly different between devices. The high-resolution colonoscopy system HD-PHL may improve polyp detection as compared with standard resolution technology in detecting flat adenomas. This advantage may have clinically significant implications for missed lesion rates and post-colonoscopy interval colorectal cancer rates.
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.