Skip to main content
British Medical Journal logoLink to British Medical Journal
. 1979 Nov 24;2(6201):1322–1324. doi: 10.1136/bmj.2.6201.1322

How reliable is determination of ulcer size by endoscopy?

A Sonnenberg, M Giger, L Kern, C Noll, K Study, K B Weber, A L Blum
PMCID: PMC1597374  PMID: 519430

Abstract

The suface areas of 23 artificial ulcers in a rubber manikin and of 35 ulcers in 35 consecutive patients admitted for endoscopy of the upper gastrointestinal tract were estimated by six endoscopists. Of the 138 estimations made in the manikin 80% underestimated the true size of the ulcer: the mean (+/- SD) was -29 +/- 40%. The largest and the smallest estimate of the same ulcer by different endoscopists varied on average by a factor of 4.5 +/- 3.8, and the estimates by the same endoscopists of ulcers with the same size varied by a factor of 2.3 +/- 0.6. In the patients the scatter of the estimates was even larger, the mean factor being 7.8 +/- 6.3. Changes in ulcer size are therefore an unsuitable criterion for assessing ulcer healing. Even if consecutive examinations are performed by the same endoscopist, changes in ulcer area smaller than by a factor of 3 are not discernible.

Full text

PDF
1322

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Dyck W. P., Belsito A., Fleshler B., Liebermann T. R., Dickinson P. B., Wood J. M. Cimetidine and placebo in the treatment of benign gastric ulcer: a multicenter double blind study. Gastroenterology. 1978 Feb;74(2 Pt 2):410–415. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Englert E., Jr, Freston J. W., Graham D. Y., Finkelstein W., Kruss D. M., Priest R. J., Raskin J. B., Rhodes J. B., Rogers A. I., Wenger J. Cimetidine, antacid, and hospitalization in the treatment of benign gastric ulcer: a multicenter double blind study. Gastroenterology. 1978 Feb;74(2 Pt 2):416–425. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Heinkel K., Kimmig J. M. Magenphantome zur Ausbildung in der Gastrokamera-Untersuchung und Gastroskopie. Z Gastroenterol. 1971;9(5):331–340. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Heinkel K., Kimmig J. M. Phantomtraining zur Ausbildung in der endoskopischen Magenuntersuchung. Z Gastroenterol. 1972 Sep;10(8):393–398. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Hentschel E., Schütze K., Havelec L. Die Behandlung des Ulcus duodeni und des präpylorischen Ulcus ventriculi mit Cimetidin. Wien Klin Wochenschr. 1979 Jan 19;91(2):53–57. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Peter P., Kiene K., Gonvers J. J., Pelloni S., Weber K., Sonnenberg A., Schmitz H., Richter O., Hofstetter J. R., Blum A. L. Cimetidin in der Behandlung des Ulcus duodeni. Ergebnisse einer Doppelblindstudie bei ambulant behandelten Patienten. Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 1978 Jul 21;103(29):1163–1166. doi: 10.1055/s-0028-1129221. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Scheurer U., Witzel L., Halter F., Keller H. M., Huber R., Galeazzi R. Gastric and duodenal ulcer healing under placebo treatment. Gastroenterology. 1977 May;72(5 Pt 1):838–841. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from British Medical Journal are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES