Definition of Mucosal Breaks in the Era of Magnifying Endoscopy with Narrow-Band Imaging

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Gastroenterology Research and Practice Pub Date : 2022-05-13 DOI:10.1155/2022/3952962
D. Kikuchi, H. Odagiri, Y. Hoshihara, Y. Ochiai, Yugo Suzuki, J. Hayasaka, Masami Tanaka, K. Nomura, S. Yamashita, A. Matsui, T. Iizuka, S. Hoteya
{"title":"Definition of Mucosal Breaks in the Era of Magnifying Endoscopy with Narrow-Band Imaging","authors":"D. Kikuchi, H. Odagiri, Y. Hoshihara, Y. Ochiai, Yugo Suzuki, J. Hayasaka, Masami Tanaka, K. Nomura, S. Yamashita, A. Matsui, T. Iizuka, S. Hoteya","doi":"10.1155/2022/3952962","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Gastroesophageal reflux disease is diagnosed endoscopically based on the presence of mucosal breaks. However, mucosal breaks can be judged differently depending on the endoscopist, even in the same image. We investigated how narrow-band imaging (NBI) and magnified endoscopy affect the judgment of mucosal breaks. Methods A total of 43 consecutive patients were enrolled who had suspected mucosal breaks on white-light images (WLI) and underwent nonmagnified NBI (N-NBI) and magnified NBI (M-NBI) by a single endoscopist. From WLI, N-NBI, and M-NBI, 129 image files were created. Eight endoscopists reviewed the image files and judged the presence of mucosal breaks. Results The 8 endoscopists determined mucosal breaks were present in 79.4 ± 9.5% (67.4%–93.0%) on WLI, and 76.7 ± 12.7% (53.5%–90.7%) on N-NBI. However, the percentage of mucosal breaks on M-NBI was significantly lower at 48.8 ± 17.0% (18.6%–65.1%) (p < 0.05). Intraclass correlation between observers was 0.864 (95% CI 0.793–0.918) for WLI and 0.863 (95% CI 0.791–0.917) for N-NBI but was lower for M-NBI at 0.758 (95% CI 0.631–0.854). Conclusion Rates of detection and agreement for mucosal breaks on WLI and N-NBI were high among endoscopists. However, these rates were lower on M-NBI.","PeriodicalId":12597,"journal":{"name":"Gastroenterology Research and Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gastroenterology Research and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/3952962","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background Gastroesophageal reflux disease is diagnosed endoscopically based on the presence of mucosal breaks. However, mucosal breaks can be judged differently depending on the endoscopist, even in the same image. We investigated how narrow-band imaging (NBI) and magnified endoscopy affect the judgment of mucosal breaks. Methods A total of 43 consecutive patients were enrolled who had suspected mucosal breaks on white-light images (WLI) and underwent nonmagnified NBI (N-NBI) and magnified NBI (M-NBI) by a single endoscopist. From WLI, N-NBI, and M-NBI, 129 image files were created. Eight endoscopists reviewed the image files and judged the presence of mucosal breaks. Results The 8 endoscopists determined mucosal breaks were present in 79.4 ± 9.5% (67.4%–93.0%) on WLI, and 76.7 ± 12.7% (53.5%–90.7%) on N-NBI. However, the percentage of mucosal breaks on M-NBI was significantly lower at 48.8 ± 17.0% (18.6%–65.1%) (p < 0.05). Intraclass correlation between observers was 0.864 (95% CI 0.793–0.918) for WLI and 0.863 (95% CI 0.791–0.917) for N-NBI but was lower for M-NBI at 0.758 (95% CI 0.631–0.854). Conclusion Rates of detection and agreement for mucosal breaks on WLI and N-NBI were high among endoscopists. However, these rates were lower on M-NBI.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
窄带放大内镜时代粘膜破裂的定义
背景胃食管反流病的内镜诊断是基于粘膜破裂的存在。然而,即使在相同的图像中,根据内镜医生的不同,粘膜破裂的判断也会有所不同。我们研究了窄带成像(NBI)和放大内窥镜检查如何影响粘膜破裂的判断。方法选择43例连续的患者,他们在白光图像(WLI)上有疑似粘膜破裂,并由一名内镜医生进行非放大NBI(N-NBI)和放大NBI。根据WLI、N-NBI和M-NBI,创建了129个图像文件。八名内镜医生检查了图像文件,判断是否存在粘膜破裂。结果8名内镜医生确定79.4例患者出现粘膜破裂 ± WLI占9.5%(67.4%–93.0%),76.7% ± N-NBI为12.7%(53.5%-90.7%)。然而,M-NBI上粘膜破裂的百分比明显较低,为48.8 ± 17.0%(18.6%-65.1%)(p<0.05)。观察者之间WLI的组内相关性为0.864(95%CI 0.793–0.918),N-NBI的组间相关性为0.863(95%CI 0.7 91–0.917),但M-NBI较低,为0.758(95%CI 0.631–0.854)。结论内镜检查者对WLI和N-NBI粘膜破裂的检测率和一致性较高。然而,M-NBI的这些比率较低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Gastroenterology Research and Practice
Gastroenterology Research and Practice GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
91
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Gastroenterology Research and Practice is a peer-reviewed, Open Access journal which publishes original research articles, review articles and clinical studies based on all areas of gastroenterology, hepatology, pancreas and biliary, and related cancers. The journal welcomes submissions on the physiology, pathophysiology, etiology, diagnosis and therapy of gastrointestinal diseases. The aim of the journal is to provide cutting edge research related to the field of gastroenterology, as well as digestive diseases and disorders. Topics of interest include: Management of pancreatic diseases Third space endoscopy Endoscopic resection Therapeutic endoscopy Therapeutic endosonography.
期刊最新文献
Diagnostic Efficacy of Vibration-Controlled Transient Elastography in Patients With Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Liver Disease and Chronic Hepatitis B. Prevalence of Gastroparesis and the Impact of Metformin in Diabetic Patients: A Cross-Sectional Study in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Clinical Practice and Safety of Endoscopic Balloon Dilation for Crohn's Disease-Related Strictures: A Nationwide Claim Database Analysis in Japan. Efficacy of Step-Down Therapy Using Vonoprazan for Symptomatic Mild Reflux Esophagitis. Beneficial Alterations of Intestinal Microbiota in Chronic Cholecystitis Patients Treated With NOTES Gallbladder-Preserving Surgery.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1