Endocuff Vision Reduces Inspection Time Without Decreasing Lesion Detection in a Randomized Colonoscopy Trial

Background & Aims Mucosal exposure devices improve detection of lesions during colonoscopy and have reduced examination times in uncontrolled studies. We performed a randomized trial of Endocuff Vision vs standard colonoscopy to compare differences in withdrawal time (the primary end point). We proposed that Endocuff Vision would allow complete mucosal inspection in a shorter time without impairing lesion detection. Methods Adults older than 40 years undergoing screening or surveillance colonoscopies were randomly assigned to the Endocuff group (n=101, 43.6% women) or the standard colonoscopy group (n=99; 57.6% women). One of 2 experienced endoscopists performed the colonoscopies, aiming for a thorough evaluation of the proximal sides of all haustral folds, flexures, and valves in the shortest time possible. Inspection time was measured with a stopwatch and calculated by subtracting washing, suctioning, polypectomy and biopsy times from total withdrawal time. Results There were significantly fewer women in the Endocuff arm (P = .0475) but there were no other demographic differences between groups. Mean insertion time with Endocuff was 4.0 min vs 4.4 min for standard colonoscopy (P = .14). Mean inspection time with Endocuff was 6.5 min vs 8.4 min for standard colonoscopy (P < .0001). Numbers of adenomas detected per colonoscopy (1.43 vs 1.07; P = .07), adenoma detection rate (61.4% vs 52%; P = .21), number of sessile serrated polyps per colonoscopy (0.27 vs 0.21; P = .12), and sessile serrated polyp detection rate (19.8% vs 11.1%; P = .09) were all higher with Endocuff Vision. Results did not differ significantly when we controlled for age, sex, or race. Conclusion In a randomized trial, we found inclusion of Endocuff in screening or surveillance colonoscopies to decrease examination time without reducing lesion detection

The R.I. Pimenov unified gravitation and electromagnetism field theory as semi-Riemannian geometry

More then forty years ago R.I. Pimenov introduced a new geometry -- semi-Riemannian one -- as a set of geometrical objects consistent with a fibering $pr: M_n \to M_m.$ He suggested the heuristic principle according to which the physically different quantities (meter, second, coulomb etc.) are geometrically modelled as space coordinates that are not superposed by automorphisms. As there is only one type of coordinates in Riemannian geometry and only three types of coordinates in pseudo-Riemannian one, a multiple fibered semi-Riemannian geometry is the most appropriate one for the treatment of more then three different physical quantities as unified geometrical field theory. Semi-Euclidean geometry $^{3}R_5^4$ with 1-dimensional fiber $x^5$ and 4-dimensional Minkowski space-time as a base is naturally interpreted as classical electrodynamics. Semi-Riemannian geometry $^{3}V_5^4$ with the general relativity pseudo-Riemannian space-time $^{3}V^4,$ and 1-dimensional fiber $x^5,$ responsible for the electromagnetism, provides the unified field theory of gravitation and electromagnetism. Unlike Kaluza-Klein theories, where the 5-th coordinate appears in nondegenerate Riemannian or pseudo-Riemannian geometry, the theory based on semi-Riemannian geometry is free from defects of the former. In particular, scalar field does not arise. PACS: 04.50.Cd, 02.40.-k, 11.10.KkComment: 16 pages, 2 figures. Submited to Physics of Atomic Nucle

On Degenerate Metrics and Electromagnetism

A theory of degenerate metrics is developed and applied to the problem of unifying gravitation with electromagnetism. The approach is similar to the Kaluza-Klein approach with a fifth dimension, however no ad hoc conditions are needed to explain why the extra dimension is not directly observable under everyday conditions. Maxwell's theory is recovered with differences only at very small length scales, and a new formula is found for the Coulomb potential that is regular everywhere.Comment: The published article is available on the GRG server at http://www.wkap.nl/journa

A comparison of 2 distal attachment mucosal exposure devices: a noninferiority randomized controlled trial

Background and Aims Endocuff and Endocuff Vision are effective mucosal exposure devices for improving polyp detection during colonoscopy. AmplifEYE is a knock-off device that appears similar to the Endocuff devices but has received minimal clinical testing. Methods We performed a randomized controlled clinical trial using a noninferiority design to compare Endocuff Vision with AmplifEYE. Results The primary endpoint of adenomas per colonoscopy was similar in AmplifEYE at 1.63 (2.83) versus 1.51 (2.29) with Endocuff Vision; p=0.535. The 95% lower confidence limit was 0.88 for ratio of means, establishing noninferiority of AmplifEYE (p=0.008). There was no difference between the arms in mean insertion time, and mean inspection time (withdrawal time minus polypectomy time and time for washing and suctioning) was shorter with AmplifEYE (6.8 minutes vs 6.9 minutes, p=0.042). Conclusions AmplifEYE is noninferior to Endocuff Vision for adenoma detection. The decision of which device to use can be based on cost. Additional comparisons of AmplifEYE to Endocuff by other investigators are warranted

Impact of a ring fitted cap on insertion time and adenoma detection: a randomized controlled trial

Background and Aims: Devices for flattening colon folds can improve polyp detection at colonoscopy. However, there are few data on the endoscopic ring fitted cap (EndoRings, EndoAid, Caesarea, Israel). We sought to compare adenoma detection with EndoRings with that of standard high-definition colonoscopy. Methods: A single-center randomized controlled trial of 562 patients (284 randomized to EndoRings and 278 to standard colonoscopy) at 2 outpatient endoscopy units in the Indiana University Hospital system. Adenoma detection was the primary outcome measured as adenoma detection rate (ADR) and adenomas per colonoscopy (APC). We also compared sessile serrated polyp detection rate (SSPDR), insertion times, withdrawal times, and ease of passage through the sigmoid colon. Results: EndoRings was superior to standard colonoscopy in terms of APC (1.46 vs 1.06, p=0.025) but there were no statistically significant differences in ADR or SSPDR. Mean withdrawal time (in patients with no polyps) was shorter and insertion time (all patients) was longer in the EndoRings arm by 1.8 minutes and 0.75 minutes, respectively. One provider had significantly higher detection with EndoRings and contributed substantially to the overall results. Conclusions: EndoRings can increase adenoma detection without significant increase in procedure time, but the effect varies between operators. EndoRings slows colonoscope insertion

Duty, desire or indifference? A qualitative study of patient decisions about recruitment to an epilepsy treatment trial

BACKGROUND: Epilepsy is a common neurological condition, in which drugs are the mainstay of treatment and drugs trials are commonplace. Understanding why patients might or might not opt to participate in epilepsy drug trials is therefore of some importance, particularly at a time of rapid drug development and testing; and the findings may also have wider applicability. This study examined the role of patient perceptions in the decision-making process about recruitment to an RCT (the SANAD Trial) that compared different antiepileptic drug treatments for the management of new-onset seizures and epilepsy. METHODS: In-depth interviews with 23 patients recruited from four study centres. All interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed; the transcripts were analysed thematically using a qualitative data analysis package. RESULTS: Of the nineteen informants who agreed to participate in SANAD, none agreed for purely altruistic reasons. The four informants who declined all did so for very specific reasons of self-interest. Informants' perceptions of the nature of the trial, of the drugs subject to trial, and of their own involvement were all highly influential in their decision-making. Informants either perceived the trial as potentially beneficial or unlikely to be harmful, and so agreed to participate; or as potentially harmful or unlikely to be beneficial and so declined to participate. CONCLUSION: Most patients applied 'weak altruism', while maintaining self-interest. An emphasis on the safety and equivalence of treatments allowed some patients to be indifferent to the question of involvement. There was evidence that some participants were subject to 'therapeutic misconceptions'. The findings highlight the individual nature of trials but nonetheless raise some generic issues in relation to their design and conduct

Exploring the development of a cultural care framework for European caring science

The aim of this paper is to discuss the development of a cultural care framework that seeks to inform and embrace the philosophical ideals of caring science. Following a review of the literature that identified a lack of evidence of an explicit relationship between caring science and cultural care, a number of well-established transcultural care frameworks were reviewed. Our purpose was to select one that would resonate with underpinning philosophical values of caring science and that drew on criteria generated by the European Academy of Caring Science members. A modified framework based on the work of Giger and Davidhizar was developed as it embraced many of the values such as humanism that are core to caring science practice. The proposed caring science framework integrates determinants of cultural lifeworld-led care and seeks to provide clear directions for humanizing the care of individuals. The framework is offered to open up debate and act as a platform for further academic enquiry

Explanatory pluralism in the medical sciences: theory and practice

Explanatory pluralism is the view that the best form and level of explanation depends on the kind of question one seeks to answer by the explanation, and that in order to answer all questions in the best way possible, we need more than one form and level of explanation. In the first part of this article, we argue that explanatory pluralism holds for the medical sciences, at least in theory. However, in the second part of the article we show that medical research and practice is actually not fully and truly explanatory pluralist yet. Although the literature demonstrates a slowly growing interest in non-reductive explanations in medicine, the dominant approach in medicine is still methodologically reductionist. This implies that non-reductive explanations often do not get the attention they deserve. We argue that the field of medicine could benefit greatly by reconsidering its reductive tendencies and becoming fully and truly explanatory pluralist. Nonetheless, trying to achieve the right balance in the search for and application of reductive and non-reductive explanations will in any case be a difficult exercise