↓ Skip to main content

Image Quality Analysis of Various Gastrointestinal Endoscopes: Why Image Quality Is a Prerequisite for Proper Diagnostic and Therapeutic Endoscopy

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Endoscopy, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

Readers on

mendeley
15 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.
Title
Image Quality Analysis of Various Gastrointestinal Endoscopes: Why Image Quality Is a Prerequisite for Proper Diagnostic and Therapeutic Endoscopy
Published in
Clinical Endoscopy, September 2015
DOI 10.5946/ce.2015.48.5.374
Pubmed ID
Authors

Weon Jin Ko, Pyeong An, Kwang Hyun Ko, Ki Baik Hahm, Sung Pyo Hong, Joo Young Cho

Abstract

Arising from human curiosity in terms of the desire to look within the human body, endoscopy has undergone significant advances in modern medicine. Direct visualization of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract by traditional endoscopy was first introduced over 50 years ago, after which fairly rapid advancement from rigid esophagogastric scopes to flexible scopes and high definition videoscopes has occurred. In an effort towards early detection of precancerous lesions in the GI tract, several high-technology imaging scopes have been developed, including narrow band imaging, autofocus imaging, magnified endoscopy, and confocal microendoscopy. However, these modern developments have resulted in fundamental imaging technology being skewed towards red-green-blue and this technology has obscured the advantages of other endoscope techniques. In this review article, we have described the importance of image quality analysis using a survey to consider the diversity of endoscope system selection in order to better achieve diagnostic and therapeutic goals. The ultimate aims can be achieved through the adoption of modern endoscopy systems that obtain high image quality.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 13%
Student > Master 2 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 4 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 5 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 33%
Physics and Astronomy 1 7%
Unknown 4 27%