ReviewGut2003
Genetic testing for polyposis: practical and ethical aspects.
Review in Gut, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk factors of colorectal cancer among Saudi Population: Case-control study.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2020Article
- Colorectal cancer risk in hamartomatous polyposis syndromes.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2015Review
- Colorectal cancer: a case control study of dietary factors, king faisal specialist hospital and researh center, riyadh, saudi arabia.Journal of family & community medicine · 2008Article
- Standards of care in diagnosis and testing for hereditary colon cancer.Familial cancer · 2008Article
- Mutation screening in juvenile polyposis syndrome.The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD · 2006Article
- Clinical phenotype and prevalence of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer syndrome in Chinese population.World journal of gastroenterology · 2005Article
- A comparison of the phenotype and genotype in adenomatous polyposis patients with and without a family history.Familial cancer · 2005Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The three autosomal dominant inherited polyposis syndromes, familial adenomatous polyposis, juvenile polyposis, and Peutz-Jeghers polyposis predispose to colorectal cancer as does hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer syndrome. Uncovering the genetic background of these four cancer traits provides the possibility for genetic testing of the family members of an affected patient. Before testing identification of the underlying family specific pathogenic mutation is mandatory. This is possible in about 60% to 95% of families. Endoscopic surveillance can be safely discontinued in mutation negative family members and surveillance or prophylactic surgery can be targeted to mutation positive members alone. Testing requires genetic counselling and written informed consent to prevent misunderstanding and to minimise untoward effects such as anxiety. Permanent surveillance and adequate prophylactic treatment for all mutation positive subjects and families is best ensured in national or regional polyposis registries with the capacity to take care of long term follow up from generation to generation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.