ReviewIndian journal of surgical oncology2015
Colonoscopy in Colorectal Cancer Screening: Current Aspects.
Review in Indian journal of surgical oncology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 2 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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 62 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Dietary Fat Intake and Risk of Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prospective Studies.Nutrients · 2018Pooled it
- Insights from age-stratified endoscopic detection metrics support initiating colorectal cancer screening at age 45.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Demographics of colonic health: Unveiling sex- and age-driven trends in a cross-sectional retrospective analysis of 2523 colonoscopy procedures.The Journal of international medical research · 2025Article
- Review
- DIVERT-Ca: unveiling the hidden link between acute diverticulitis and colorectal cancer risk-multicentre retrospective study.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025Article
- The effect of music and distraction on pain and anxiety during colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2025Review
- Understanding Colorectal Cancer Screening Barriers in Saudi Arabia: Insights From a Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2025Article
- MicroRNA-193a-3p as a Valuable Biomarker for Discriminating between Colorectal Cancer and Colorectal Adenoma Patients.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Attitudes toward colorectal cancer and colonoscopy in Palestine: a questionnaire-based study.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Accuracy of the Discriminatory Ability of Combined Fecal Microbiota Panel in the Early Detection of Patients with Colorectal Cancer.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2024Article
- The role of deep learning in diagnosing colorectal cancer.Przeglad gastroenterologiczny · 2023Review
- Noninvasive early detection of colorectal cancer by hypermethylation of the LINC00473 promoter in plasma cell-free DNA.Clinical epigenetics · 2022Article
- BidSi6 and BidEL isoforms as a potential marker for predicting colorectal adenomatous polyps.BMC medical genomics · 2022Article
- Review
- A multiple-dimension model for microbiota of patients with colorectal cancer from normal participants and other intestinal disorders.Applied microbiology and biotechnology · 2022Article
- Epigenetic Landscape of Liquid Biopsy in Colorectal Cancer.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2021Review
- Barriers to colonoscopy in remote northern Canada: an analysis of cancellations.International journal of circumpolar health · 2020Article
- Prognosis of synchronous colorectal carcinoma compared to solitary colorectal carcinoma: a matched pair analysis.European journal of gastroenterology & hepatology · 2019Article
- Comprehensive analysis of expression profiles of long non‑coding RNAs with associated ceRNA network involved in gastric cancer progression.Molecular medicine reports · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Colonoscopy represents a very important diagnostic modality for screening for colorectal cancer, because it has the ability to both detect and effectively remove pro-malignant and malignant lesions. It is recommended by almost all international and national gastroenterology and cancer societies, as an initial screening modality or, following a positive fecal occult blood test, to be performed every 10 years in individuals of average risk starting from the age of 50. However, a significant problem is the so-called post-screening (interval) polyps and cancers found some years after the index colonoscopy. In order to reduce the rate of interval cancers it is extremely necessary to optimize the quality and effectiveness of colonoscopy. Bowel preparation is of paramount importance for both accurate diagnosis and subsequent treatment of lesions found on colonoscopy. The quality of bowel preparation could be significantly improved by splitting the dose regimens, a strategy that has been shown to be superior to single-dose regimen. A good endoscopic technique and optimal withdrawal time offering adequate time for inspection, would further optimize the rate of cecal intubation and the number of lesions detected. During the last years, sophisticated devices have been introduced that would further facilitate cecal intubation. The percentage of total colonoscopies is now super-passing the level of 95 % allowing the adenoma detection rate to be greater than the suggestive level of 25 % in men and 15 % in women. This review aims to provide the reader with the current knowledge concerning indications, usefulness, limitations and future perspectives of this probably most important screening technique for colorectal cancer available today.
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.