ArticleYonsei medical journal2016
Long-Term Outcome and Surveillance Colonoscopy after Successful Endoscopic Treatment of Large Sessile Colorectal Polyps.
Article in Yonsei medical journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outcomes and adverse factors for endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of colorectal polyps in elderly patients.Frontline gastroenterology · 2021Article
- Importance of Resection Margins in the Treatment of Rectal Adenomas by Transanal Endoscopic Surgery.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2019Article
- Risk of subsequent primary malignancies among patients with prior colorectal cancer: a population-based cohort study.OncoTargets and therapy · 2017Article
- A retrospective comparative study of argon plasma versus polypectome snare tip coagulation: effect on recurrence rate after resection of large laterally spreading type lesions.Annals of gastroenterologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAlthough there is a consensus about the need for surveillance colonoscopy after endoscopic resection, the interval remains controversial for large sessile colorectal polyps. The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term outcome and the adequate surveillance colonoscopy interval required for sessile and flat colorectal polyps larger than 20 mm. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 204 patients with large sessile and flat polyps who received endoscopic treatment from May 2005 to November 2011 in a tertiary referral center were included.
resultsThe mean age was 65.1 years and 62.7% of the patients were male. The mean follow-up duration was 44.2 months and the median tumor size was 25 mm. One hundred and ten patients (53.9%) received a short interval surveillance colonoscopy (median interval of 6.3 months with range of 1-11 months) and 94 patients (46.1%) received a long interval surveillance colonoscopy (median interval of 13.6 months with range of 12-66 months). There were 14 patients (6.9%) who had local recurrence at the surveillance colonoscopy. Using multivariate regression analysis, a polyp size greater than 40 mm was shown to be independent risk factor for local recurrence. However, piecemeal resection and surveillance colonoscopy interval did not significantly influence local recurrence.
conclusionEndoscopic treatment of large sessile colorectal polyps shows a favorable long-term outcome. Further prospective study is mandatory to define an adequate interval of surveillance colonoscopy.
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.