ArticleSurgical endoscopy2024
Ability of detection in different resolution endoscopy for upper gastrointestinal mucosal lesions.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Asian Pacific Association of Gastroenterology task force recommendations on surveillance forGut · 2026Guideline
- Advances and Opportunities in NIR-II Endoscopy: From Diagnosis to Therapeutic Applications.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMost endoscopists believe that higher resolution improves lesion detection rates. However, existing studies primarily compared the detection rates of white light endoscopy (WLE) and other imaging modalities. Our previous study demonstrated the advantages of magnifying endoscopy from general endoscopy for lesion detection, prompting further investigation into the variations in lesion detection rates across endoscopes with different resolutions.
methodsEndoscopic and corresponding pathological data from our medical unit over the past 5 years were analyzed. We excluded specific-purpose endoscopic procedures to ensure the natural randomization of the data. Baseline adjustment and risk factor analyses used multi-group propensity score matching and logistic regression.
resultsThe overall lesion detection rate was significantly higher with high-quality endoscopy (Q-endoscopy) compared to high-definition endoscopy (H-endoscopy) and high definition and quality endoscopy (HQ-endoscopy) (34.4% vs. 30.2% vs. 29.6%, P = 0.001). Similar results were observed for elevated lesions (25.7% vs. 21.0% vs. 22.9%, P = 0.001) and depressed lesions (6.6% vs. 6.2% vs. 3.6%, P < 0.001). HQ-endoscopy had a superior detection rate for superficial lesions compared to both H- and Q-endoscopies (3.0% vs. 2.8% vs. 1.8%, P = 0.041). However, there were no significant differences in neoplastic detection rate or missed neoplastic lesion rate among the three groups.
conclusionQ-endoscopy is superior in detecting non-superficial lesions, while HQ-endoscopy is better at detecting superficial lesions. However, there were no statistically significant differences in detecting or omitting neoplastic lesions among the three endoscopic examinations.
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.