ReviewAnnals of gastroenterology2013
Serrated polyps of right colon: guilty or innocent?
Review in Annals of gastroenterology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Real-world effectiveness and safety of 1L polyethylene glycol and ascorbic acid for bowel preparation in patients aged 80 years or older.Endoscopy international open · 2025Article
- Hyperplastic polyp or sessile serrated lesion? The contribution of serial sections to reclassification.Diagnostic pathology · 2020Article
- The heterogeneous clinical and pathological landscapes of metastaticCancer cell international · 2020Review
- Precision Medicine for CRC Patients in the Veteran Population: State-of-the-Art, Challenges and Research Directions.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2018Review
- What influences preneoplastic colorectal lesion recurrence?Oncotarget · 2017Review
- Endoscopic Observation of the Growth Process of a Right-Side Sessile Serrated Adenoma/Polyp with Cytological Dysplasia to an Invasive Submucosal Adenocarcinoma.Case reports in gastrointestinal medicine · 2016Article
- Screening, management and surveillance for the sessile serrated adenomas/polyps.International journal of clinical and experimental pathology · 2014Review
- BRAF mutation as a potential marker to identify the proximal colon serrated polyps with malignant potential.International journal of clinical and experimental pathology · 2014Review
- Molecular endoscopic imaging: the future is bright.Therapeutic advances in gastrointestinal endoscopyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years a lot of interest has been focused on a specific category of polyps, the so-called serrated polyps which until recently were categorized with the hyperplastic or mixed polyps and were thought to have no risk of malignant transformation. Recently though, the serrated pathway of carcinogenesis was discovered and destroyed this myth. It is believed that up to one third of all colorectal cancers arise through the serrated pathway; these cancers occur more often in the proximal colon and have specific molecular characteristics. Specific subtypes of serrated polyps (mainly the sessile serrated adenomas/polyps) are thought to be precursor lesions of these cancers. The prevention of these cancers is a challenge for gastroenterologists because their location and endoscopic characteristics renders them difficult to detect. Also, although there is a clear need for creating a specific post-polypectomy surveillance program for these lesions, to date there have been no guidelines for surveillance with a high level of evidence. In this article the main molecular, endoscopic, histological and epidemiologic characteristics of these lesions are presented, as well as recommendations for surveillance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24714424PMC3959453W2118714435What 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.