ArticleJapanese journal of radiology2024
CT colonography has advantages over colonoscopy for size measurement of colorectal polyps.
Article in Japanese journal of radiology, 2024. 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.
- Fundamentals and research progression on electrochemical sensing of colorectal cancer.Mikrochimica acta · 2025Review
- Diagnostic Yield of Combining CT Colonoscopy and Endoscopy to Investigate Colorectal Cancer.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of colonoscopy (CS) and CT colonography (CTC) in the measurement of colorectal polyps using pathological size as a reference. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe analysis included 61 colorectal polyps in 28 patients who underwent preoperative CTC at our institution. All polyps were endoscopically resected. Polyp sizes were measured by CS and CTC. Endoscopic polyp size was extracted from endoscopy records written by one of two endoscopists (A with 11 and B with 6 years of endoscopic experience, respectively), who estimated the size visually/categorically without any measuring devices. After matching the location, the polyp size was measured on CTC using manual three-dimensional (3D) measurement on a workstation. The sizes of resected polyps were also measured after pathological inspection. Differences of the polyp size between CTC and histology, and between CS and histology were compared using paired t tests. Differences in measurement between the two endoscopists were also analyzed.
resultsThe mean diameters of polyps measured using CS, CTC, and pathology were 10.5 mm, 9.2 mm, and 8.4 mm, respectively. There was a significant correlation between CS and pathology, as well as between CTC and pathology (both P < 0.0001). The correlation coefficient for CS (r = 0.86) was lower than that for CTC (r = 0.96). The correlations between CS and pathology for endoscopists A and B were 0.90 and 0.89, respectively.
conclusionMeasurements of polyp size using CTC were closer to the pathological measurements compared to those by CS, which exhibited greater variability. This suggests that CTC may be more suitable for polyp size measurements in the clinical setting if patients undergo CTC concurrently with colonoscopy.
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.