ArticleAnnals of gastroenterology
A prospective international multisite randomized controlled trial of water exchange with and without distal cap(s) in adenoma detection.
Article in Annals of gastroenterology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Colonoscopy for Colorectal Lesion Detection: Current Evidence, Challenges, and Future Directions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Authors' reply.Annals of gastroenterologyArticle
- Methodological concerns in evaluating water exchange combined with distal attachments for adenoma detection.Annals of gastroenterologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
31 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Interval cancers are linked to a low adenoma detection rate (ADR), prompting calls for benchmark-guided ADR performance improvement. Although water exchange and a straight cap (CAP) have been reported to independently improve ADR, the effects of Daisycuff Methods: Subjects were randomized to No cap, or CAP, Daisycuff Results: Demographic and historic data revealed adequate randomization. Despite variations in site-specific pretrial ADR, the aggregated data showed that the ADR of No cap (45.6%) exceeded the latest benchmark (35%). Each added cap increased the ADR, and the difference using Daisycuff Conclusions: The significantly higher right-colon ADRs with CAP and Daisycuff
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.