ArticleScientific reports2020
The value of three narrow-band imaging model in the diagnosis of small colorectal polyps.
Article in Scientific reports, 2020. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This prospective study was aimed to evaluate the clinical value of narrow-band imaging (NBI), magnification endoscopy with narrow-band imaging (NBIME) and magnification endoscopy with acetic acid enhancement and narrow-band imaging (AA-NBIME) in the diagnosis of small colorectal polyps. We studied 261 small colorectal polyps from 122 patients with the use of above three techniques. Lesions were resected for histopathological analysis. The endoscopic images were independently reviewed by three experts and three non-experts and the diagnostic accuracy and image definition were compared among the modalities. The "experts-agreed" diagnostic accuracy was 87.7% for NBI versus 91.6% for NBIME versus 94.6% for AA-NBIME. The "non-experts-agreed" diagnostic accuracy was 80.1% for NBI versus 84.3% for NBIME versus 89.3% for AA-NBIME. All experts and non-experts diagnosed the small colorectal polyps statistically more accurately with AA-NBIME than NBI (P < 0.05). In all three modalities, the expert group's diagnostic accuracies were statistically significantly higher compared with the non-expert group. For experts, the Kappa values for AA-NBIME, NBIME and NBI diagnosis were 0.962 (0.892-1.032), 0.577 (0.507-0.647) and 0.567 (0.497-0.637), respectively; while for nonexperts, 0.818 (0.748-0.888), 0.532 (0.462-0.602) and 0.530 (0.460-0.600). This demonstrated a good reproducibility of AA-NBIME diagnosis. The average scores (experts and non-experts) of images acquired using AA-NBIME were significantly higher than those acquired using NBIME and ME (P < 0.05). AA-NBIME is a promising tool to clearly visualize the mucosal pit pattern (PP) of colorectal polyps for better differentiating neoplastic polyps from non-neoplastic ones.
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.