↓ Skip to main content

Chromoscopy versus conventional endoscopy for the detection of polyps in the colon and rectum

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

1 policy source


44 Dimensions

Readers on

36 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Chromoscopy versus conventional endoscopy for the detection of polyps in the colon and rectum
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2010
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006439.pub3
Pubmed ID

Brown SR, Baraza W, Brown, Steven R, Baraza, Wal


Although conventional colonoscopy is the most sensitive test available for the investigation of the colorectum for polyps, there are data that raise concerns about its sensitivity. Chromoscopy may be one way of enhancing the ability for colonoscopy to detect polyps particularly diminutive flat lesions that may be otherwise difficult to detect. To determine whether the use of chromoscopy enhances detection of polyps and neoplasia during endoscopic examination of the colon and rectum. MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library databases were searched (April 2010) along with a hand search of abstracts from relevant meetings. Search terms included randomised trials containing combinations of the following: 'chromoscopy' 'colonoscopy' 'dye-spray' 'chromo-endoscopy' 'indigo-carmine' 'magnifying endoscopy'. All prospective randomised trials comparing chromoscopic with conventional endoscopic examination of the lower gastrointestinal tract were included. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease or polyposis syndromes were excluded. Two reviewers assessed the methodological quality of potentially eligible trials and independently extracted data from the included trials. Outcome measures included the detection of polyps (neoplastic and non-neoplastic), the detection of diminutive lesions, the number of patients with multiple neoplastic lesions and the extubation time. Five trials were included in this update, and although there were some methodological drawbacks and differences in study design, combining the results showed a significant difference in favour of chromoscopy for all detection outcomes. In particular, chromoscopy is likely to yield significantly more patients with at least one neoplastic lesion (OR 1.67 (CI 1.29-2.15)) and significantly more patients with three or more neoplastic lesions (OR 2.55 (CI 1.49-4.36)). Not surprisingly the withdrawal times were significantly slower for the chromoscopy group. There appears to be strong evidence that chromoscopy enhances the detection of neoplasia in the colon and rectum. Patients with neoplastic polyps, particularly those with multiple polyps, are at increased risk of developing colorectal cancer. Such lesions, which presumably would be missed with conventional colonoscopy, could contribute to the interval cancer numbers on any surveillance programme.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Unknown 35 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor > Associate Professor 6 17%
Student > Master 5 14%
Researcher 5 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 3 8%
Other 9 25%
Unknown 5 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 78%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Psychology 1 3%
Chemistry 1 3%
Materials Science 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 3 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 July 2012.
All research outputs
of 12,100,779 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 7,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 227,320 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 188 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,100,779 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,978 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 227,320 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 188 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.