Copyright
©2010 Baishideng.
World J Gastrointest Endosc. Apr 16, 2010; 2(4): 121-129
Published online Apr 16, 2010. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v2.i4.121
Published online Apr 16, 2010. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v2.i4.121
Table 1 Comparison of the outcomes from various types of standard and digital chromoendoscopy for minimal change reflux disease diagnosis
Endoscopy with magnification[21] | NBI with magnification[29] | NBI without magnification[30] | FICE without magnification[31] | |
Sensitivity | 64 | 55 | 86.6 | 77.8 |
Specificity | 85 | 87 | 83.3 | 83.3 |
NPV | 70 | NA | 83.3 | 55.6 |
PPV | 80 | NA | 86.1 | 93.3 |
Accuracy | 74 | NA | NA | 79.2 |
Criteria for the diagnosis | Punctuate erythema | Increased IPCLs | Increased vascularity with absence of round pit patterns | Triangular lesions |
Interobserver1 agreement | NA | Fair | Good | Poor |
Intraobserver1 agreement | NA | Fair | NA | NA |
- Citation: Chaiteerakij R, Rerknimitr R, Kullavanijaya P. Role of digital chromoendoscopy in detecting minimal change esophageal reflux disease. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 2(4): 121-129
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-5190/full/v2/i4/121.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4253/wjge.v2.i4.121