ArticleGastroenterology report2026
Integrated endoscopy: a new method for improving the diagnostic accuracy of
Article in Gastroenterology report, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: We proposed an integrated endoscopic strategy and compared it with conventional methods to assess whether it improves the diagnostic accuracy of Methods: A retrospective cohort (between 1 August 2022 and 30 April 2024; Results: In the retrospective cohort, IE achieved higher overall accuracy than WLE and ME (79.8% vs 69.9% and 71.8%, respectively), with improved accuracy for negative (85.4%) and eradicated status (72.5%). ME was more accurate than WLE for negative (82.9% vs 61.0%) and eradicated status (62.7% vs 52.9%), whereas WLE was more accurate for positive status (87.3% vs 71.8%). In the prospective cohort, IE again showed the highest overall accuracy (86.4% vs 70.6% for WLE and 72.9% for ME), with higher accuracy for negative (90.7%) and eradicated status (92.4%), while WLE maintained higher accuracy for positive status (89.8% vs 78.4% for IE). Conclusion: IE that combines ME-based fundic crypt opening assessment with WLE features may improve endoscopic classification of overall, negative, and eradicated
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.