ArticleDEN open2026
Third-Generation Narrow-Band Imaging Versus White-Light Imaging for the Detection of Early Gastric Cancer: A Randomized Controlled 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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The endoscopic system EVIS X1 with improved image quality has been introduced into clinical practice. We examined whether third-generation narrow-band imaging (3G-NBI) is more effective than white-light imaging (WLI) for detecting early gastric cancer (EGC). Methods: Our study, performed at a single center, had a parallel-group, open-label, two-arm, randomized, controlled design. Patients who had undergone endoscopic submucosal dissection for EGC were randomly assigned to a group undergoing 3G-NBI after initial WLI (initial WLI group) or a group undergoing WLI after initial 3G-NBI (initial 3G-NBI group). The primary endpoint was the EGC detection rate of the two methods. The secondary endpoints were as follows: proportions of EGC detected and missed lesions, positive predictive value (PPV) for EGC diagnosis, and observation time for WLI and 3G-NBI. Results: The EGC detection rate was 9.0% (17/188) in the initial WLI group and 8.5% (16/188) in the initial 3G-NBI group. The missed lesion rate was 5.6% (1/18) in the initial WLI group and 0% (0/18) in the initial 3G-NBI group. The PPV of the initial WLI group was 42.5% (17/40), whereas that of the secondary 3G-NBI was 25% (1/4). The PPV of the initial 3G-NBI group was 30.2% (16/53). No biopsies were performed during secondary WLI. The examination times were 274 ± 78.2 and 280 ± 82.9 s for WLI and 3G-NBI, respectively. Conclusions: 3G-NBI was not superior to WLI in detecting EGC. This finding is likely due to improved WLI image quality.
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.