Trial reportEndoscopy2025
Comparison of adenoma detection rate between three-dimensional and standard colonoscopy: a multicenter randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Efficacy of Pan-Indigo Carmine Chromoendoscopy by Water-Jet Pump in the Detection of Colorectal Lesions: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2026Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Improvement in adenoma detection rates (ADRs) effectively reduces the incidence of colorectal cancer. In a simulation study, three-dimensional (3D) colonoscopy provided more anatomical details than standard two-dimensional (2D) colonoscopy and improved ADR. We compared ADRs between 2D and 3D colonoscopy. Methods: In this multicenter randomized controlled trial, participants aged ≥40 years undergoing colonoscopy for screening, surveillance, or symptoms between February 2022 and June 2023 were randomized 1:1 into 2D or 3D groups. The primary outcome was ADR. Secondary outcomes included detection rates for flat adenomas, right-sided adenomas, proximal adenomas, advanced adenomas, and sessile serrated lesions (SSLs). Results: Of 348 participants recruited, data from 158 (2D group) and 160 (3D group) were analyzed. Mucosa inspection time was comparable between the 3D (9.8 [SD 2.6] minutes) and 2D (9.4 [SD 3.1] minutes) groups (P = 0.21). Compared with the 2D group, the 3D group had a significantly higher ADR (53.1% vs. 38.6%; difference 14.5% [95%CI 3.7 to 25.4]; P = 0.009), and higher detection rates for flat adenomas (35.0% vs. 21.5%; difference 13.5% [95%CI 3.7 to 23.3]; P = 0.008), right-sided adenomas (26.3% vs. 15.2%; difference 11.1% [95%CI 2.2 to 19.9]; P = 0.02), proximal adenomas (38.1% vs. 23.4%; difference 14.7% [95%CI 4.7 to 24.7]; P = 0.005), and adenomas sized 5–9 mm (45.0% vs. 31.0%; difference 14.0% [95%CI 3.4 to 24.5]; P = 0.01). There was no difference in detection rates for SSLs or advanced adenomas. Conclusion: 3D colonoscopy improved adenoma detection without significantly increasing the mucosa inspection time.
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.