METHODS: We enrolled patients undergoing colonoscopy from February 2015 to May 2017 in two institutions. All procedures were performed with the latest system (EVIS LUCERA ELITE, Olympus). The cecum and ascending colon were first observed with white light imaging (WLI) in both the NBI and WLI group. Then, the colonoscope was re-inserted, and the cecum and ascending colon were observed for an additional 30 s. In this second observation, NBI was performed for the first 130 patients in the NBI group and WLI for the next 130 in the WLI group. The number of adenoma and sessile serrated polyps (ASPs) in the second observation were examined in both groups. According to our initial pilot study, the sample size was estimated at 126.

RESULTS: In the first observation, the number of ASPs was 72 in the NBI group and 72 in the WLI group (p = 1.0). In the second observation, the number of ASPs was 23 in the NBI group and 10 in the WLI group (p = 0.02). The polyp and adenoma detection rates in the second observation were 16.2% and 12.3% in the NBI group and 7.7% (p = 0.03) and 6.2% (p = 0.09) in the WLI group.

METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed two pictures both with white light (WL) and LCI for 54 consecutive neoplastic polyps 2-20 mm in size. All pictures were evaluated by four endoscopists according to a published polyp visibility score from four (excellent visibility) to one (poor visibility). Additionally, we calculated CD value between each polyp and surrounding mucosa in LCI and WL using an original software.

Patients and methods : We retrospectively reviewed 1000 consecutive colorectal ESD cases (April 2006 to January 2017). Since 2016, the PCM was performed in 58 cases. The indications for ESD included (1) tumors ≥ 20 mm in size diagnosed as intramucosal cancer or high-grade dysplasia and part of T1a cancer using magnifying endoscopic examinations and (2) tumors that appeared impossible to resect with endoscopic mucosal resection because of suspected fibrosis. We identified 120 cases with severe fibrosis and compared them to cases without severe fibrosis. Additionally, the 120 severe fibrosis cases were divided into the PCM and non-PCM groups. En bloc resection, procedure time, discontinuation, and complications were analyzed between these 2 groups.

Results:  Among all 1000 ESDs, severe fibrosis and discontinuation rates were 12.0 % (120 cases) and 1.8 % (18 cases), respectively. Regarding the comparison between cases with severe fibrosis and with no severe fibrosis, there were significant differences about en bloc resection rate (78.3 % vs. 95.7 %, P   0.6.

METHODS: This was a multicenter retrospective-cohort study. We collected HGD and T1 lesions of ≤ 10 mm resected by CSP among 15 520 patients receiving CSP from 2014 to 2019 at nine related institutions, and we extracted only cases receiving definite follow-up colonoscopy after CSP of HGD and T1 lesions. We analyzed these tumor's characteristics and therapeutic results such as R0 resection and local recurrence and risk factors of recurrence.

Patients and methods:  During laboratory experiments, the cleaner (Cleash; Fujifilm Co., Tokyo, Japan and Nagase Medicals Co., Hyogo, Japan) was applied to the endoscopic lens and an air/water device (AWD) (water 200 mL, dimethicone 1 mL, Cleash 1 mL). The endoscope was submerged in water 100 times for 5 cycles. Rates of WDA were calculated for various groups (lens and AWD with or without Cleash) and compared to a normal cleaner (SL cleaner). During clinical research, 30 colonoscopies and 30 esophagogastroduodenoscopies were analyzed. For the Cleash group, the cleaner was applied to both lens and AWD. The numbers of WDA and WDA with non-rapid removal were calculated, compared to those of the SL cleaner group.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search was performed across PubMed, EMBASE, Emerald Insight and grey literature sources. The key terms used in the search include 'distribution', 'method', and 'physician', focusing on research articles published in English from 2002 to 2022 that described methods or tools to measure hospital-based physicians' distribution. Relevant articles were selected through a two-level screening process and critically appraised. The primary outcome is the measurement tools used to assess the distribution of hospital-based physicians. Study characteristics, tool advantages and limitations were also extracted. The extracted data were synthesised narratively.

RESULTS: Out of 7,199 identified articles, 13 met the inclusion criteria. Among the selected articles, 12 were from Asia and one from Africa. The review identified eight measurement tools: Gini coefficients and Lorenz curve, Robin Hood index, Theil index, concentration index, Workload Indicator of Staffing Need method, spatial autocorrelation analysis, mixed integer linear programming model and cohortcomponent model. These tools rely on fundamental data concerning population and physician numbers to generate outputs. Additionally, five studies employed a combination of these tools to gain a comprehensive understanding of physician distribution dynamics.

Results: There were 140 cases (61 males) evaluated, with an average age of 72.1 ± 13.6 years (≤74 years: 71 cases; ≥75 years: 69 cases). The discontinuation rate was 7.9%. The SBM (times/week) increased from 2.86 to 6.08 (p < 0.001). The overall SBM improvement rate was 74.0% (≤74 years: 78.2% vs. ≥75 years: 68.9%, p = 0.31; male: 75.0% vs. female: 73.3%, p = 0.78). The overall improvement rate of stool consistency was 59.6% (≤74 years: 62.9%, ≥75 years: 56.1%, p = 0.42). The time until the first SBM (hours) for those ≤74 years and ≥75 years was 17.2 ± 14.3 and 11.2 ± 8.4 (p = 0.04). Adverse event rates for those ≤74 years and ≥75 years were 28.2% and 10.1% (p < 0.01). There were no significant effect-related factors for gender, age, and use of laxatives.

METHODS: We prospectively observed lesions with white light imaging (WLI), LCI, and BLI using both LED and LASER colonoscopies from January 2020 to August 2021. Images were graded by 27 endoscopists from nine countries using the polyp visibility score: 4 (excellent), 3 (good), 2 (fair), and 1 (poor) and the comparison score (LED better/similar/LASER better) for WLI/LCI/BLI images of each lesion.