ArticleMilitary Medical Research2025
Evaluation and application of an innovative portable field endoscope: addressing battlefield and biosafety concerns.
Article in Military Medical Research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A roadmap for medical large language models: a review of foundations, applications, and challenges.Military Medical Research · 2026Review
- Challenges, opportunities, and future perspectives of portable field endoscopy.Military Medical Research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAt present, no commercially available endoscopic system is specifically designed for use in the battlefield, disaster relief, or unique environments with biosafety concerns. Therefore, this limitation stems from challenges such as limited portability, reliance on stable power, complex disinfection processes, and the risk of incomplete sterilization. To address these challenges, we developed a novel portable endoscopic system and evaluated its safety and effectiveness in both routine settings and specialized scenarios, including the global pandemic caused by a novel coronavirus, which represents an environment with biosafety concerns.
methodsAfter sample size calculation, 30 patients underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) or colonoscopy using the YunSendo (the experimental group) and Olympus systems (the control group) in a randomized order. Operation time, image quality, operational performance, lesion detection, and safety were assessed. Ten emergency patients with suspected upper gastrointestinal bleeding received bedside treatment using the YunSendo system during the global pandemic caused by a novel coronavirus. Clinical outcomes in emergency endoscopic treatment were assessed.
resultsNo significant differences were observed between the YunSendo and Olympus groups in terms of image quality, lesion detection, and overall procedural performance. YunSendo facilitated biopsy and colonic polyp removal; no adverse endoscopy events were reported. YunSendo successfully executed diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in emergencies, with no observed mortality at 1, 7, or 30 d, no rebleeding at 1 or 30 d, and no cross-infection rates.
conclusionsThe performance of the YunSendo portable endoscopic system was comparable to the Olympus system in terms of key metrics, demonstrating its utility in urgent scenarios. This novel system is particularly promising for medical rescue and military missions and for addressing battlefield and biosafety concerns.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.