Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 203

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Pancolonic chromoendoscopy with indigo carmine versus standard colonoscopy for detection of neoplastic lesions: a randomised two-centre trial

Pohl, Jürgen, Schneider, Arved, Vogell, Hartmut, Mayer, Gerhard, Kaiser, Gernot, Ell, Christian·2011·Gut

Abstract

Objective: Colonoscopy is the accepted gold standard for detecting colorectal adenomas, but the miss rate, especially for small and flat lesions, remains unacceptably high. The aim of this study was to determine whether enhanced mucosal contrast using pancolonic chromoendoscopy (PCC) allows higher rates of adenoma detection. Methods: In a prospective, randomised two-centre trial, PCC (with 0.4% indigo carmine spraying during continuous extubation) was compared with standard colonoscopy (control group) in consecutive patients attending for routine colonoscopy. The histopathology of the lesions detected was confirmed by evaluating the endoscopic resection or biopsy specimens. Results: A total of 1008 patients were included (496 in the PCC group, 512 in the control group). The patients' demographic characteristics and indications for colonoscopy were similar in the two groups. The proportion of patients with at least one adenoma was significantly higher in the PCC group (46.2%) than in the control group (36.3%; p=0.002). Chromoendoscopy increased the overall detection rate for adenomas (0.95 vs 0.66 per patient), flat adenomas (0.56 vs 0.28 per patient) and serrated lesions (1.19 vs 0.49 per patient) (p<0.001). There was a non-significant trend towards increased detection of advanced adenomas (103 vs 81; p=0.067). Mean extubation times were slightly but significantly longer in the PCC group in comparison with the control group (11.6±3.36 min vs 10.1±2.03 min; p<0.001). Conclusions: Pancolonic chromoendoscopy markedly enhances adenoma detection rates in an average-risk population and is practicable enough for routine application.

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.2010.229534

Cites

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

Cited by

See all 203

Metadata

Authors
Pohl, J., Schneider, A., Vogell, H., Mayer, G., Kaiser, G., & Ell, C.
Venue
Gut
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2010-12-15
Volume
60
Issue
4
Pages
485-490
ISSN
  • 0017-5749 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-3288
OpenAlex
W2168344957
Cited by
203
References
0
FWCI
6.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Pancolonic chromoendoscopy with indigo carmine versus standard colonoscopy for detection of neoplastic lesions: a randomised two-centre trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/gut.2010.229534
The paper
Pohl, J., Schneider, A., Vogell, H., Mayer, G., Kaiser, G., & Ell, C. (2011). Pancolonic chromoendoscopy with indigo carmine versus standard colonoscopy for detection of neoplastic lesions: a randomised two-centre trial. Gut. https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.2010.229534

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.