4.6 Article

Interobserver agreement in detection of white globe appearance and the ability of educational lectures to improve the diagnosis of gastric lesions

期刊

GASTRIC CANCER
卷 20, 期 4, 页码 620-628

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10120-016-0676-3

关键词

Gastric cancer; Magnifying endoscopy; Narrowband imaging; White globe appearance

向作者/读者索取更多资源

White globe appearance (WGA) refers to a small white lesion of globular shape underneath cancerous gastric epithelium that can be clearly visualized by magnifying endoscopy with narrowband imaging (M-NBI). WGA has been reported to be a novel endoscopic marker that is highly specific in differentiating early gastric cancer (GC) from low-grade adenoma, and has a significantly higher prevalence in early GCs than in noncancerous lesions. However, interobserver agreement in detecting WGA and whether training intervention can improve diagnostic accuracy are unknown. Twenty sets of M-NBI images were examined by 16 endoscopists. The endoscopists attended a lecture about WGA, and examined the images again after the lecture. Interobserver agreement in detecting WGA in the second examination and increases in the proportion of correct diagnoses and the degree of confidence of diagnoses of cancerous lesions were evaluated. The kappa value for interobserver agreement in detecting WGA in the second examination was 0.735. The proportion of correct diagnoses was significantly higher in the second examination compared with the first examination when WGA was present (95.5% vs 55.4%; P < 0.001), but not when WGA was absent (61.6% vs 52.7%; P = 0.190). The proportion of correct diagnoses with a high degree of confidence was significantly higher in the second examination, both with WGA (91.1% vs 29.5%; P < 0.001) and without WGA (36.6% vs 20.5%; P = 0.031). The detection of WGA by endoscopists was highly reproducible. A brief educational lecture about WGA increased the proportion of correct diagnoses and the degree of confidence of diagnoses of GC with WGA.

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