ArticleBJGP open2022
A novel digital rectoscope for the triage of lower gastrointestinal symptoms in primary care: a prospective multicentre feasibility study.
Article in BJGP open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this 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.
LumenEye During CovID-19 (LuCID Study)
Surveillance Digital Rectoscopy After Local Excision of Rectal Tumours
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost analysis of the use of digital rectoscopy versus flexible sigmoidoscopy in rectal cancer patients undergoing watch and wait.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Evaluating the clinical use and safety of LumenEye in an outpatient colorectal clinic: a single-centre retrospective cohort study.Techniques in coloproctology · 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
13 authors at 12 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccess to community rectoscopy might help to ease the burden on hospital services and reduce costs for the NHS. To assess this, a prospective multicentre observational phase I feasibility study of a novel digital rectoscope and telestration software for the triage of lower gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms was undertaken.
aimTo determine if digital rectoscopy is feasible, acceptable, and clinically safe. DESIGN &
settingEvaluation of clinician case reports and patient questionnaires from patients recruited from five primary care centres.
methodAdults meeting 2-week wait (2WW) criteria for suspected lower GI cancer, suspected new diagnosis, or flare-up of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) were enrolled. Examinations were performed by primary care practitioners using the LumenEye rectoscope. The CHiP platform allowed immediate remote review by secondary care. A prospective analysis was performed of patient and clinician experiences, diagnostic accuracy, and cost.
resultsA total of 114 patients were recruited and 110 underwent the procedure (46 [42%] females and 64 [58%] males). No serious adverse events were reported. Eighty-two (74.5%) patients reported that examination was more comfortable than expected, while 104 (94.5%) felt the intervention was most convenient if delivered in the community. Clinicians were confident of their assessment in 100 (87.7%) examinations. Forty-eight (42.1%) patients subsequently underwent colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, or computed tomography virtual colonoscopy (CTVC). The overall sensitivity and specificity of LumenEye in identifying rectal pathology was 90.0% and 88.9%. It was 100% and 100% for cancer, and 83.3% and 97.8% for polyps. Following LumenEye examination, 19 (17.3%) patients were discharged, with projected savings of 11 305 GBP.
conclusionDigital rectoscopy in primary care is safe, acceptable, and can reduce referrals. A phase III randomised controlled trial is indicated to define its utility in reducing the burden on hospital diagnostic services.
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.