Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 324

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A prospective comparative study of narrow-band imaging, chromoendoscopy, and conventional colonoscopy in the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia

Open access
Chiu, Han-Mo, Chang, Chi-Yang, Chen, Chien-Chuan, Lee, Yi-Chia, Wu, Ming-Shiang, Lin, Jaw-Town, Shun, Chia-Tung, Wang, Hsiu-Po·2007·Gut

Abstract

Background: Discrimination between neoplastic and non-neoplastic lesions is crucial in colorectal cancer screening. Application of narrow-band imaging (NBI) in colonoscopy visualises mucosal vascular networks in neoplastic lesions and may improve diagnostic accuracy. Aim: To compare the diagnostic efficacy of NBI in differentiating neoplastic from non-neoplastic colorectal lesions with diagnostic efficacies of standard modalities, conventional colonoscopy, and chromoendoscopy. Methods: In this prospective study, 180 colorectal lesions from 133 patients were observed with conventional colonoscopy, and under low-magnification and high-magnification NBI and chromoendoscopy. Lesions were resected for histopathological analysis. Endoscopic images were stored electronically and randomly allocated to two readers for evaluation. Sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy of each endoscopic modality were assessed by reference to histopathology. Results: NBI and chromoendoscopy scored better under high magnification than under low magnification in comparison with conventional colonoscopy. The diagnostic accuracy of NBI with low or high magnification was significantly higher than that of conventional colonoscopy (low magnification: p = 0.0434 for reader 1 and p = 0.004 for reader 2; high magnification: p<0.001 for both readers) and was comparable to that of chromoendoscopy. Conclusion: Both low-magnification and high-magnification NBI were capable of distinguishing neoplastic from non-neoplastic colorectal lesions; the diagnostic accuracy of NBI was better than that of conventional colonoscopy and equivalent to that of chromoendoscopy. The role of NBI in screening colonoscopy needs further evaluation.

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 · 10.1136/gut.2006.099614

Cites

10 of 10 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 10 references

Cited by

See all 324

Metadata

Authors
Chiu, H.-M., Chang, C.-Y., Chen, C.-C., Lee, Y.-C., Wu, M.-S., Lin, J.-T., Shun, C.-T., & Wang, H.-P.
Venue
Gut
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2006-09-27
Volume
56
Issue
3
Pages
373-379
ISSN
  • 0017-5749 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-3288
OpenAlex
W2029157089
Cited by
324
References
10
FWCI
14.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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 prospective comparative study of narrow-band imaging, chromoendoscopy, and conventional colonoscopy in the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/gut.2006.099614
The paper
Chiu, H.-M., Chang, C.-Y., Chen, C.-C., Lee, Y.-C., Wu, M.-S., Lin, J.-T., Shun, C.-T., & Wang, H.-P. (2007). A prospective comparative study of narrow-band imaging, chromoendoscopy, and conventional colonoscopy in the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia. Gut. https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.2006.099614

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.