ReviewWorld journal of gastroenterology2016
Contained colonic perforation due to cecal retroflexion.
Review in World journal of gastroenterology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Proximal retroflexion versus second forward view of the right colon during screening colonoscopy: A multicentre randomized controlled trial.United European gastroenterology journal · 2020Trial
- Unlocking quality in endoscopic mucosal resection.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2023Review
- Second exam of right colon improves adenoma detection rate: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Endoscopy international open · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Complications of cecal retroflexion performed during colonoscopy have not previously been reported to occur. We report a case of contained colonic perforation secondary to using cecal retroflexion technique to examine the colon, and review available published reports of complications associated with this technique. We conclude that complications may rarely occur with use of cecal retroflexion, and that the clinical benefit of this technique is uncertain.
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.