ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2020
The efficacy of tumor characterization and tumor detectability of linked color imaging and blue laser imaging with an LED endoscope compared to a LASER endoscope.
Article in International journal of colorectal disease, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Irrigating Acetic Acid Solution During Colonoscopy for the Detection of Sessile Serrated Neoplasia: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2022Trial
- Efficacy of image-enhanced endoscopy for colorectal polyp detection.Clinical endoscopy · 2026Review
- Comparison of adenoma detection rate using the novel 5-LED vs xenon-light endoscopic system: Propensity score matching analysis.Endoscopy international open · 2025Article
- Analysis of Texture and Color Enhancement Imaging for Improving the Visibility of Non-polypoid Colorectal Lesions.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2022Review
- Severe grade of melanosis coli is associated with a higher detection rate of colorectal adenoma.Journal of clinical biochemistry and nutrition · 2022Article
- The Efficacy of Tumor Characterization for Colorectal Lesions with Blue Light Imaging of a Compact Light-Emitting Diode Endoscopic System Compared to a Laser Endoscopic System: A Pilot Study.Gastroenterology research and practice · 2022Article
- An analysis about the function of a new artificial intelligence, CAD EYE with the lesion recognition and diagnosis for colorectal polyps in clinical practice.International journal of colorectal disease · 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
13 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAn endoscope with a light-emitting diode (LED) light source which has a 2-mm close-distance observation function without magnification, has been marketed, enabling linked color imaging (LCI) and blue laser imaging (BLI) for tumor detection and characterization. We analyzed the efficacy of a LED endoscope compared to a LASER endoscope.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 272 lesions observed using the LED endoscopic system (Fujifilm Co., Tokyo, Japan) from May 2018 to September 2019. The Japanese NBI Classification was used for tumor characterization. We analyzed the diagnostic accuracy and confidence level. Sixty-one lesions observed with both the LED and magnified LASER endoscopes were also analyzed to compare the diagnostic accuracy. Regarding the tumor detectability, we calculated color difference values (CDVs) and brightness values (BVs) of white-light imaging, BLI, and LCI modes between the two endoscopes for each tumor.
resultsThe mean polyp size was 9.2 ± 11.3 mm. Histology showed 71 sessile serrated lesions, 193 adenoma and high-grade dysplasias, and 8 T1 cancers. The diagnostic accuracy of tumors ≥ 10 and < 10 mm was 72.0% and 92.9% (p < 0.001), respectively and the high confidence rate was 93.8%. The diagnostic accuracy of LED (77.0%) was a little higher than that of LASER without magnification (65.6%, p = 0.16) but was not inferior to that of LASER with magnification (82.0%, p = 0.50). The respective CDVs of LED and LASER endoscopes were 20.6 ± 11.2 and 21.6 ± 11.2 for LCI (p = 0.30), and the respective BVs were 210.0 ± 24.2 and 175.9 ± 21.1 (p < 0.001).
conclusionsA LED endoscope with close-distance observation improved tumor detection and characterization due to high brightness.
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.