ArticleJournal of gastric cancer2025
A Novel Digital Method for Accurate Endoscopic Size Measurement of Gastric Lesions: A Comparative Study With Visual and Forceps-Assisted Estimation.
Article in Journal of gastric cancer, 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.
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
purposeAccurate measurement of the lesion size during endoscopy is crucial; however, it frequently relies on visual estimation, which is prone to errors. This study investigated these inaccuracies and introduced a novel depth-estimation algorithm (DEA) to evaluate its performance against conventional methods, visual estimation, and forceps-assisted estimation. MATERIALS AND
methodsNineteen endoscopists (6 experts, 13 novices) measured 15 artificial lesions (6-39 mm) within a 3-dimensional (3D)-printed stomach model using visual estimation (VE), forceps-assisted estimation (FE), and DEA. Measurement accuracy was evaluated using median percentage error (MdPE) and interquartile range (IQR). Subgroup analyses were conducted according to the endoscopist's experience and lesion size, location, and shape for each measurement method.
resultsVE resulted in the highest MdPE at 33.33% (IQR, 17.24%-60.00%), while FE showed greater accuracy at 30.00% (IQR, 11.11%-48.72%; P<0.01). Unlike experts, novices exhibited no significant improvement in FE compared to VE (P=0.09). Conventional methods have demonstrated high error rates for polyp-shaped lesions and those located in the fundus, middle to high body, or the greater curvature. DEA achieved the highest accuracy, with an MdPE of 7.78% (IQR, 3.33%-16.67%), significantly outperforming both VE and FE (P<0.01) regardless of lesion characteristics, and showed consistent performance across endoscopist experience (P=0.18).
conclusionsGiven the observed error patterns in VE, endoscopists should exercise caution when evaluating polyp-shaped lesions and those located in the proximal stomach and greater curvature. The DEA outperformed conventional methods, especially for novices. Its integration into endoscopic practice can enhance the precision of lesion size measurements, ultimately improving clinical decision-making and outcomes.
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.