Trial reportUnited European gastroenterology journal2021
Standard versus Endocuff versus cap-assisted colonoscopy for adenoma detection: A randomised controlled clinical trial.
Trial report in United European gastroenterology journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Application of colonoscopic auxiliary devices in reducing the polyp miss rate: a prospective randomized controlled study.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Trial
- Enhanced adenoma detection with Endocuff Vision: a GRADE assessed systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Impact of Endocuff addition to real-time computer-aided detection of colorectal neoplasia in a randomised tandem colonoscopy trial.World journal of gastrointestinal pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Article
- Combining techniques and technologies increases adenoma detection rates in colonoscopy: More is more.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2025Review
- Combating Post-colonoscopy Colorectal Cancer: Insight from the Trials and Cohort Studies.The Korean journal of gastroenterology = Taehan Sohwagi Hakhoe chi · 2025Review
- A novel colonoscope with an extra-wide field of view increases polyp detection rate compared with standard colonoscope: Prospective model-based trial.Endoscopy international open · 2024Article
- COLODETECT 1: comparative evaluation of endocuff with computer-aided detection versus computer-aided detection alone versus standard colonoscopy for enhancing adenoma detection rates during screening colonoscopy-a pilot study.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Michael Manns winner of the 2022 UEG Lifetime Achievement Award.United European gastroenterology journal · 2022Article
- Measuring and Improving Quality of Colonoscopy for Colorectal Cancer Screening.Techniques and innovations in gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2022Article
- Editorial: Cuff- and cap-assisted colonoscopy: More questions than answers.United European gastroenterology journal · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
13 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsAdenoma detection rate (ADR) in colon cancer screening is most important for cancer prophylaxis. This work is the first three-armed randomised controlled clinical trial aimed at comparing a head-to-head setting standard colonoscopy (SC) with Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy (EC) and cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC) for improvement of ADR.
methodsPatients from Poland and Germany with independent indication for colonoscopy were randomised into three arms of this trial: EC, CAC and SC. Exclusion criteria were age <18 years, active Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis, known stenosis and post-colonic resection status.
resultsA total of 585 patients (195 SC, 189 EC and 186 CAC) were enrolled in this study. Indications were not different between the groups (colorectal cancer screening 51%, diagnostic colonoscopy in 31% and post-polypectomy follow-up in 18%; p = 0.94). Withdrawal time was a mean of 7 min in all groups (p = 0.658), and bowel preparation did not differ between the groups. The time to reach the caecum was significantly reduced when using the cap (a mean of 6 min for CAC vs. 7 min for SC; p = 0.0001). There was no significant difference in the primary outcome of the ADR between the groups (EC 32%, CAC 30%, SC 30%; p = 0.815). EC proved to be superior (EC vs. SC) in the sigmoid colon and transverse colon for polyp detection.
conclusionThe use of EC increased the total number of polyps seen during colonoscopy. In contrast to recent studies, no significant improvement of the ADR was detected.
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.