ArticleJournal of gastric cancer2021
Diagnostic Ability of High-definition Imaging Using Ultraslim Endoscopes in Early Gastric Cancer.
Article in Journal of gastric cancer, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic performance of deep-learning-based virtual chromoendoscopy in gastric neoplasms.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2024Article
- Visibility of early gastric cancers by texture and color enhancement imaging using a high-definition ultrathin transnasal endoscope.Scientific reports · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIt is unclear whether high-definition (HD) imaging improves visibility and diagnostic ability in early gastric cancer (EGC) compared with standard-definition (SD) imaging. We aimed to compare the diagnostic performance and visibility scores of HD and SD ultraslim endoscopes in EGC. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe used HD and SD ultraslim endoscopes to obtain 60 images with similar compositions of gastric environments. Of the 60 images, 30 showed EGC (15 images for each modality) and 30 showed no EGC (15 images for each modality). Seventeen endoscopists evaluated the presence and location of the lesions in each image. Diagnostic ability was compared between modalities. The color difference between a lesion and the surrounding mucosa (ΔE) was measured and compared between the modalities.
resultsThe ability of HD to detect EGC was significantly higher than that of SD (accuracy: 80.8% vs. 71.6%, P=0.017; sensitivity: 94.9% vs. 76.5%, P<0.001; positive predictive value, 76.2% vs. 55.3%, P<0.001; and negative predictive value (NPV), 94.1% vs. 73.5%, P<0.001). The ability of HD to determine the horizontal extent of EGC was significantly higher than that of SD (accuracy: 71.0% vs. 57.8%, P=0.004; sensitivity: 75.3% vs. 49.0%, P<0.001; NPV, 72.9% vs. 55.9%, P<0.001; and area under the curve: 0.891 vs. 0.631, P=0.038). The mean ΔE was significantly higher for HD than for SD (10.3 vs. 5.9, P=0.011).
conclusionsThe HD ultraslim endoscope showed a higher diagnostic performance in EGC than the SD endoscope because it provided good color contrast.
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.