4.6 Article

Sensitivity of the suspected blood indicator: An experimental study

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 18, 期 31, 页码 4169-4174

出版社

BAISHIDENG PUBLISHING GROUP INC
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v18.i31.4169

关键词

Capsule endoscopy; Suspected blood indicator; Sensitivity; Background color; Passage velocity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

AIM: To investigate whether suspected blood indicator (SBI) in capsule endoscopy (CE) is affected by background color and capsule passage velocity. METHODS: Experimental models of the small intestine constructed from paper in a variety of colors were used to simulate the background colors observed in CE images. The background colors studied included very pale yellow, yellow, very pale magenta, light grayish pink, burnt sienna, and deep and dark brown, and red spots were attached inside them. An endoscopic capsule was manually passed through the models. The rate of detection of the red spots by the SBI was evaluated based on the colors of the models and the capsule passage velocities (0.5 cm/s, 1 cm/s, and 2 cm/s). RESULTS: The rate of detection of the red spots by the SBI differed significantly according to the background color of the model (P < 0.001). Detection rates were highest for backgrounds of very pale magenta, burnt sienna, and yellow, in that order. They were lowest for backgrounds of dark brown and very pale yellow. The rate of detection of red spots by the SBI tended to decrease at rapid capsule passage velocities (1-2 cm/s) compared to slow velocities (0.5 cm/s) for backgrounds of very pale yellow (P = 0.042), yellow (P = 0.001), very pale magenta (P = 0.002), and burnt sienna (P = 0.001). No significant differences in the rate of detection were observed according to velocity for light grayish pink (P = 0.643) or dark brown (P = 0.396). CONCLUSION: SBI sensitivity was affected by background color and capsule passage velocity in the models. These findings may facilitate the rapid detection of bleeding lesions by CE. (C) 2012 Baishideng. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据