ArticlePloS one2016
Development of a Novel Scoring System for Predicting the Risk of Colorectal Neoplasia: A Retrospective Study.
Article in PloS one, 2016. 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, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predictive factors of non-operative management failure in 494 blunt liver injuries: a multicenter retrospective study.Updates in surgery · 2022Observational
- Association between Hemoglobin Levels and Colorectal Polyps in Asymptomatic Chinese Adults.Gastroenterology research and practice · 2020Article
- Exploring aflatoxin contamination and household-level exposure risk in diverse Indian food systems.PloS one · 2020Article
- Article
- Molecular pathological epidemiology: new developing frontiers of big data science to study etiologies and pathogenesis.Journal of gastroenterology · 2017Review
- Risk Model for Colorectal Cancer in Spanish Population Using Environmental and Genetic Factors: Results from the MCC-Spain study.Scientific reports · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to develop a novel scoring system to screen subjects who have a high risk for colorectal neoplasia. STUDY DESIGN AND
settingWe retrospectively analyzed 1061 subjects undergoing total colonoscopy (TCS) for the first time at Gihoku Kosei Hospital. The characteristics and habits of the subjects were analyzed using a multivariate logistic regression analysis. The risk score was established according to each odds ratio of the individual risk factors, and the correlations between the sum of the risk scores and the prevalence of colorectal neoplasia for each individual were evaluated.
resultsAge 45-59 (risk score: 2 points) and ≥60 (3 points), male gender (1 point), and habitual alcohol consumption ≥21g daily (1 point) were extracted as the significant risk factors for colorectal neoplasia. When the risk groups were determined by summing up these risk scores, the prevalence rates of colorectal neoplasia were 8.8% for the low risk group (0-2 points), 30.5% for the low-moderate risk group (3 points), 39.1% for the high-moderate risk group (4 points), and 57.6% for the high risk group (5 points). In comparison with the low risk group, the odds ratio of the low-moderate risk, the high-moderate risk, and the high risk groups were 4.6, 6.7, and 14.1 folds, respectively.
conclusionOur scoring system, which linearly correlates with the prevalence rate of colorectal neoplasia, may be an effective tool for screening the subjects who have a high risk for colorectal neoplasia. These subjects, therefore, should be recommended to undergo TCS.
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.