ArticleThe American journal of gastroenterology2015
Trouble in Paris (classification): polyp morphology is in the eye of the beholder.
Article in The American journal of gastroenterology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- A step-by-step guide to approaching colon polyps.Gastroenterology and hepatology from bed to bench · 2023Article
- Large polyps: Pearls for the referring and receiving endoscopist.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2021Review
- Medical needs related to the endoscopic technology and colonoscopy for colorectal cancer diagnosis.BMC cancer · 2021Article
- Current strategies for malignant pedunculated colorectal polyps.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2018Review
- Colorectal Cancer in Inflammatory Bowel Disease.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2018Review
- A novel methodology for in vivo endoscopic phenotyping of colorectal cancer based on real-time analysis of the mucosal lipidome: a prospective observational study of the iKnife.Surgical endoscopy · 2017Observational
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Key challenges to colonoscopy outcomes include polyp detection, appropriate polyp resection, and prediction of recurrent polyps. The Paris classification of gastrointestinal neoplasia has been used to attempt to address these challenges based on the hypothesis that the visual appearance of a polyp (e.g., sessile, flat, depressed) has an impact on these outcomes. Although the Paris classification has been widely used as a measurement tool in research, and reported to predict outcomes such as risk for high-grade dysplasia and invasive carcinoma, interobserver variability associated with this classification scheme has not been studied. In the current issue of the Red Journal, van Doorn et al. studied the interobserver variation of Paris classification in 85 colorectal polyps assessed by seven expert colonoscopists. They found that interobserver variation measured by kappa was only moderate (kappa=0.42; 95% confidence interval: 0.39-0.45). These findings suggest that without methods to improve interobserver variability, the Paris classification cannot routinely be used for research or routine practice. New approaches to characterizing polyp appearance may be required to use morphology as a predictor of clinical outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25567171What 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.