ArticleCurrent health sciences journal
EndoCuff-Assisted Colonoscopy Versus Standard Colonoscopy in Colonic Polyp Detection-Experience from a Single Tertiary Centre.
Article in Current health sciences journal. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Enhanced adenoma detection with Endocuff Vision: a GRADE assessed systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Systemic inflammatory biomarkers (NLR, SII, PNI and FPR) combined with CEA for predicting advanced colorectal neoplasms: development and temporal validation of a machine learning model.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Development and validation of a predictive model for pathological upgrading in colorectal polyps based on endoscopic forceps biopsy.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStandard colonoscopy fails to visualize the entire colon mucosa and consequently a significant amount of polyps are still being missed. New device, such as EndoCuff, have been developed to improve mucosal visualisation, hence the quality in colonoscopy. The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic yield of EndoCuff-assisted colonoscopy in comparison with standard colonoscopy by taking into consideration several quality indicators.
methodsIn this study, 965 adults ≥ 18 years referred for colonoscopy were randomly divided into two groups. The main statistical investigation compared the difference between EndoCuff-assisted colonoscopy (EC) vs. standard colonoscopy (SC) in the detection of colonic polyps and adenoma detection rate (ADR). The second inquiry sought to compare experienced vs. recently trained and female vs. male operators.
resultsThe ADR was higher for EC than for SC (37.50% vs. 26.64%). Regarding the mean number of detected polyps per procedure (MPP), the result was statistically significant when generally comparing the EC vs. SC (p=0.0009). There were no differences in MPP between EC and SC for recently trained endoscopists (p=0.7446), while a significant difference for experienced doctors (p=0,0020) was noted. A significant difference was observed between female doctors and male doctors only when using SC. EC was more helpful for female doctors when assessing MPP (p=0.0118). No serious adverse events related to EndoCuff-assisted colonoscopy was noted.
conclusionsEndoCuff-assisted colonoscopy seems to be safe and may bring benefits for improving the polyp/adenoma detection rates in regard to missed lesions, usually located in blind areas.
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.