Authors (year) | Design | Number of patients | Patients with dysplasia | Comparison endoscopy | Dysplasia detection rate |
Dekker et al (2007) Netherlands65 | Randomised crossover | 42 | 8 | SD-WLE | 9 vs 12 DL |
van den Broek et al (2011) Netherlands66 | Randomised crossover | 48 | 9 | HD-WLE | 13 vs 11 DL |
Pellisé et al (2011) Spain67 | Randomised crossover | 60 | 12 | CE (IC 0.5%) | 10 vs 12 DL |
Feitosa et al (2011) Brazil68 | Randomised, parallel-group | 16 | 0 | CE (N/A) | 0 vs 3 DL |
Ignjatovic et al (2012) UK69 | Randomised, parallel-group | 112 | 10 | HD-WLE | 5 vs 7 DL |
Bisschops et al (2012) Belgium70 | Randomised | 108 | 22 | CE (MB 0.1%) | 18.5% vs 16.7% DL |
Efthymiou et al (2013) Australia71 | Crossover | 44 | 10 | CE (MB 0.1%) | 17 vs 20 DL |
Leifeld et al (2015) Germany72 | Crossover | 159 | 22 | HD-WLE | 31 vs 30 DL |
Watanabe et al (2016) Japan73 | Randomised | 263 | N/A | CE (IC) | 11.9% vs 10.7% DL |
Bisschops et al (2018) Belgium/Canada43 | Randomised | 131 | 14 | CE (MB 0.1%) | 21 vs 31 DL |
CE, chromoendoscopy;DL, dysplastic lesion;HD-WLE, high-definition white-light endoscopy;IC, indigo carmine;MB, methylene blue; SD-WLE, standard definition white-light endoscopy.