ArticleBMC gastroenterology2024
Relationship between observation time and detection rate of focal lesions in Esophagogastroduodenoscopy: a single-center, retrospective study.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Early Detection of Gastric Cancer: Linking Epidemiology, Pathophysiology, and Innovations in Digestive Endoscopy.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Coding Gaps and Missed Opportunities: How Billing Practices May Improve Gastric Cancer Detection in the United States.ACG case reports journal · 2026Article
- Frequency and characteristics of synchronous gastric cancers: Need for improved awareness and better detection.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2026Review
- The impact of photographic image quantity on early upper gastrointestinal cancer detection during esophagogastroduodenoscopy.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Performance of the National Cancer Screening Program for Gastric Cancer in Korea.The Korean journal of helicobacter and upper gastrointestinal research · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCurrent studies have shown that longer observation time can improve neoplastic detection rate. This study aimed to clarify whether endoscopists with longer observation times can detect more focal lesions.
methodsBased on the mean examination time for Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) without biopsy, endoscopists were divided into fast and slow groups, and the detection rate of focal lesions was compared between the two groups. Univariate analysis, multivariate analysis and restricted cubic spline were used to explore the factors of focal lesion detection rate.
resultsMean examination time of EGD without biopsy was 4.5 min. The cut-off times used were 5 min. 17 endoscopists were classified into the fast (4.7 ± 3.6 min), and 16 into the slow (7.11 ± 4.6 min) groups. Compared with fast endoscopists, slow endoscopists had a higher detection rate of focal lesions (47.2% vs. 51.4%, P < 0.001), especially in the detection of gastric lesions (29.7% vs. 35.9%, P < 0.001). In univariate and multivariate analyses, observation time, patient age and gender, expert, biopsy rate, and number of images were factors in FDR. There is a nonlinear relationship between observation time and FDR.
conclusionLonger examination time improves the detection rate of focal lesions. Observation time is an important quality indicator of the EGD examination.
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.