Trial reportZeitschrift fur Gastroenterologie2022
The feasibility and safety of disposable endoscope vs. conventional endoscope for upper gastrointestinal tract examination: a multicenter, randomized, parallel, non-inferiority trial.
Trial report in Zeitschrift fur Gastroenterologie, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 3 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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.
Performance Characteristics and Technical Outcomes of Single-use Versus Reusable Gastroscopes Evaluated in the Operating Room in Acute, Subacute and Elective Patients
Performance Characteristics and Technical Outcomes of Single-use Gastroscopes Used Bedside Versus Reusable Gastroscopes Used in the Endoscopy Unit Evaluated in Subacute Patients
Endoscopists' Perspectives on the Use of Single-Use Gastroscopes in Elective and Subacute Patients in the Endoscopy Unit
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic and Clinical Performance of Single-Use Versus Reusable Gastrointestinal Endoscopes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses.Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2026Pooled it
- Technical and clinical feasibility of single-use gastroscopy with real-time AI-based quality monitoring and single-use colonoscopy: a prospective two-center study.Biomedical engineering online · 2026Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA disposable upper gastrointestinal endoscope can effectively decrease infectious outbreaks associated with endoscope reuse. In the present study, we aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of a disposable endoscope for upper gastrointestinal examination.
methodsIn a prospective, randomized trial, 144 upper endoscopic procedures were allocated to either the disposable endoscope group or the conventional endoscope group. The primary outcomes were rates of excellent and good image qualities and maneuverability satisfaction. The second outcome included procedure duration, endoscopic diagnosis, and adverse events.
resultsA total of 144 subjects were enrolled in the present analysis and prospectively randomized to 2 study groups. Finally, 70 and 69 subjects were enrolled in the novel disposable endoscope group and the conventional endoscope group, respectively, due to the schedule cancellation of 5 subjects. The baseline characteristics of the patients were similar in both groups. The excellent and good image quality rates and maneuverability satisfaction of the novel disposable endoscope were not inferior to the conventional endoscope (p = 0.99 and p = 0.99, respectively). Moreover, no significant between-group difference was observed in the endoscopic results and adverse events (p = 0.30 and p = 1, respectively). However, the procedure duration in the novel disposable endoscope was longer compared with the conventional endoscope (8.40 ± 4.28 min
conclusionsThe novel disposable endoscope was as safe, effective, and maneuverable as a conventional endoscope. However, the novel disposable endoscope was associated with a longer procedure duration.
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.