Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 746

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Comparison of Virtual and Conventional Colonoscopy for the Detection of Colorectal Polyps

Open access
Fenlon, Helen M., Nunes, David P., Schroy, Paul C., Barish, Matthew A., Clarke, Peter D., Ferrucci, Joseph T.·1999·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Virtual colonoscopy is a new method of imaging the colon in which thin-section, helical computed tomography (CT) is used to generate high-resolution, two-dimensional axial images. Three-dimensional images of the colon simulating those obtained with conventional colonoscopy are then reconstructed off-line. We compared the performance of virtual and conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps. METHODS: We prospectively studied 100 patients at high risk for colorectal neoplasia (60 men and 40 women; mean age, 62 years). We performed virtual colonoscopy immediately before conventional colonoscopy. We inserted a rectal tube and insufflated the colon with air to the maximal level that the patient could tolerate. We administered 1 mg of glucagon intravenously immediately before CT scanning to minimize the degree of smooth-muscle spasm and peristalsis and to reduce the patient's discomfort. RESULTS: The entire colon was clearly seen by virtual colonoscopy in 87 patients and by conventional colonoscopy in 89. Fifty-one patients had normal findings on conventional colonoscopy. In the other 49, we identified a total of 115 polyps and 3 carcinomas. Virtual colonoscopy identified all 3 cancers, 20 of 22 polyps that were 10 mm or more in diameter (91 percent), 33 of 40 that were 6 to 9 mm (82 percent), and 29 of 53 that were 5 mm or smaller (55 percent). There were 19 false positive findings of polyps and no false positive findings of cancer. Of the 69 adenomatous polyps, 46 of the 51 that were 6 mm or more in diameter (90 percent) and 12 of the 18 that were 5 mm or smaller (67 percent) were correctly identified by virtual colonoscopy. Although discomfort was not specifically recorded, none of the patients requested that virtual colonoscopy be stopped because of discomfort or pain. CONCLUSIONS: In a group of patients at high risk for colorectal neoplasia, virtual and conventional colonoscopy had similar efficacy for the detection of polyps that were 6 mm or more in diameter.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejm199911113412003

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 20 references

Cited by

See all 746

Metadata

Authors
Fenlon, H. M., Nunes, D. P., Schroy, P. C., Barish, M. A., Clarke, P. D., & Ferrucci, J. T.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
1999-11-11
Volume
341
Issue
20
Pages
1496-1503
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W1976975876
Cited by
746
References
20
FWCI
24.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Comparison of Virtual and Conventional Colonoscopy for the Detection of Colorectal Polyps. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm199911113412003
The paper
Fenlon, H. M., Nunes, D. P., Schroy, P. C., Barish, M. A., Clarke, P. D., & Ferrucci, J. T. (1999). A Comparison of Virtual and Conventional Colonoscopy for the Detection of Colorectal Polyps. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199911113412003

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.