ArticleScientific reports2024
Usefulness and safety of new ultrasmall-diameter colonoscope for cases with difficult insertion: a retrospective study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Colonoscopies are widely available, but there are cases where insertion can be difficult, even for experienced endoscopists. EC-760XP/L, a new ultrasmall-diameter long scope, may be useful in such cases. This single-center retrospective study included 39 cases where colonoscope insertion was difficult even when previously conducted by an experienced endoscopist. The primary outcome was the cecal intubation time using EC-760XP/L compared to the time used in a previous examination with a standard scope. The secondary outcomes were the cecum intubation rate, intestinal cleanliness level, adenoma detection rate, polyp detection rate, sedative use rate, occurrence of adverse events, and pain experience. A comparison of cecal intubation times between EC-760XP/L and the standard scope showed that insertion times were significantly lower with EC-760XP/L (9.5 min) compared to the standard scope (19 min) (p < 0.01). The standard scope achieved cecal intubation in 30 cases (76.9%), whereas EC-760XP/L reached the cecum in all cases (p < 0.01). Pain was observed in 3 cases (8.3%) with the EC-760XP/L, which was significantly lower than the 22 cases (56.4%) with the standard scope (p < 0.01). In conclusion, EC-760XP/L proved to be useful in cases where colonoscope insertion was difficult.
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.