ArticleDEN open2026
Diagnostic Performance of Magnifying Endoscopy With Crystal Violet Staining for Superficial Non-ampullary Duodenal Epithelial Tumors: A Single-center Prospective Study.
Article in DEN open, 2026. 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: We previously reported a potential diagnostic algorithm for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs) using white-light magnifying endoscopy with crystal violet staining (ME-CV). This study aimed to determine the diagnostic performance of the scheme and compare it with the conventional white-light endoscopy (WLE) scoring system in a prospectively accumulated cohort. Methods: This was a single-center prospective cohort study conducted over a 3-year period. The primary endpoint was the diagnostic performance of ME-CV in distinguishing Vienna classification (VCL) category 4/5 (C4/5) from category 3 (C3) SNADETs, including the positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV), as evaluated by two expert endoscopists. We compared the diagnostic performance of the WLE and ME-CV algorithms. Results: Fifty patients with SNADETs were enrolled. The inter-observer agreement for the WLE scoring system and the ME-CV algorithm was good (kappa 0.66 and 0.63). The PPV and NPV of the ME-CV algorithm, when applied by expert endoscopists, were 25.6% and 90.2%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy of the WLE scoring system were 43.8%, 73.8%, 24.1%, 87.3%, and 69.0%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the ME-CV algorithm were 62.5%, 65.5%, and 65.0%, respectively. Comparison of the diagnostic performance between the two systems demonstrated the significantly higher sensitivity of the ME-CV algorithm (WLE, 43.8%; ME-CV, 62.5%; Conclusions: The ME-CV algorithm had higher sensitivity than the WLE scoring system for distinguishing VCL C4/5 from VCL C3 in SNADETs, suggesting its potential to improve diagnosis and for selecting appropriate endoscopic resection.
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.