ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2015
Probability of high-risk colorectal neoplasm recurrence based on the results of two previous colonoscopies.
Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Yield of Advanced Neoplasia at Second Post-polypectomy Surveillance Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2025Pooled it
- Recommendations for Follow-Up After Colonoscopy and Polypectomy: A Consensus Update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2020Guideline
- Outcomes at follow-up of negative colonoscopy in average risk population: systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2019Pooled it
- Article
- Recommendations for Follow-Up After Colonoscopy and Polypectomy: A Consensus Update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2020Article
- Recommendations for Follow-Up After Colonoscopy and Polypectomy: A Consensus Update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.Gastroenterology · 2020Article
- Does Colon Polyp Surveillance Improve Patient Outcomes?Gastroenterology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCurrent guidelines for the surveillance colonoscopy interval are largely based on the most recent colonoscopy findings.
aimWe aimed to evaluate differences in the probability of high-risk neoplasm recurrence according to the two previous colonoscopy findings.
methodsThis was a retrospective cohort study from a tertiary-care center. A total of 4,143 subjects who underwent three or more colonoscopies for screening or surveillance purposes from January 2001 to December 2011 were enrolled. We compared the probability of high-risk neoplasm detection on follow-up colonoscopies after the second colonoscopy based on risk categories in both the second and first colonoscopies.
resultsAt the final colonoscopy, 370 participants (8.9 %) had high-risk neoplasms. In patients with a normal second colonoscopy, the probability of high-risk neoplasm recurrence was different between those with normal, low-risk, and high-risk findings at the first colonoscopy (3.8, 6.8, and 17.7 %, respectively). The hazard ratio of a high-risk neoplasm at the final colonoscopy for patients with a normal second and low-risk first colonoscopy over a normal second and normal first colonoscopy was 3.07 (95 % CI 2.04-4.64, P < 0.001). The hazard ratio of high-risk neoplasm at the final colonoscopy for patients with a normal second and high-risk first colonoscopy over a normal second with normal first colonoscopy was 7.88 (95 % CI 4.90-12.67, P < 0.001).
conclusionsThe rate of high-risk colorectal neoplasm recurrence differs according to the two previous colonoscopy findings. Therefore, surveillance intervals could be adjusted not just only by the most recent colonoscopy findings but also by considering two previous colonoscopy findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25150704What 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.