ArticleDigestion2023
A Multicenter Prospective Validation Study on Selective Endoscopic Resection of Sessile Serrated Lesions Using Magnifying Colonoscopy in Clinical Practice.
Article in Digestion, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- A colonial serrated polyp classification model using white-light ordinary endoscopy images with an artificial intelligence model and TensorFlow chart.BMC gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Verification of the increase in concomitant dysplasia and cancer with the size of sessile serrated lesions.Endoscopy international open · 2024Article
- Image enhanced colonoscopy: updates and prospects-a review.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2023Review
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 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSessile serrated lesions (SSLs) have malignant potential for colorectal cancer in the serrated pathway. Selective endoscopic resection of SSLs would reduce medical costs and procedure-related accidents, but the accurate endoscopic differentiation of SSLs from hyperplastic polyps (HPs) is challenging. To explore the differential diagnostic performance of magnifying colonoscopy in distinguishing SSLs from HPs, we conducted a multicenter prospective validation study in clinical practice.
methodsConsidering the rarity of diminutive SSLs, all lesions ≥6 mm that were detected during colonoscopy and diagnosed as type 1 based on the Japan narrow-band imaging expert team (JNET) classification were included in this study. Twenty expert endoscopists were asked to differentiate between SSLs and HPs with high or low confidence level after conventional and magnifying NBI observation. To examine the validity of selective endoscopic resection of SSLs using magnifying colonoscopy in clinical practice, we calculated the sensitivity of endoscopic diagnosis of SSLs with histopathological findings as comparable reference.
resultsA total of 217 JNET type 1 lesions from 162 patients were analyzed, and 114 lesions were diagnosed with high confidence. The sensitivity of magnifying colonoscopy in detecting SSLs was 79.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 74.7-84.4%) overall, and 82.4% (95% CI: 76.1-87.7%) in the high-confidence group. These results showed that the sensitivity of this study was not high enough, even limited in the high-confidence group.
conclusionsAccurate differential diagnosis of SSLs and HPs using magnifying colonoscopy was challenging even for experts. JNET type 1 lesions ≥6 mm are recommended to be resected because selective endoscopic resection has a disadvantage of leaving approximately 20% of SSLs on site.
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.