Trial reportGastroenterology2017
Factors Associated With Shorter Colonoscopy Surveillance Intervals for Patients With Low-Risk Colorectal Adenomas and Effects on Outcome.
Trial report in Gastroenterology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 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
34 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 85 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quality indicators for colonoscopy.Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2024Guideline
- Prevalence and Clinical Features of Sessile Serrated Polyps: A Systematic Review.Gastroenterology · 2020Pooled it
- Korean clinical practice guidelines for bowel preparation before colonoscopy.Clinical endoscopy · 2026Review
- Adherence to 2020 US Multi-Society Task Force Guidelines for Post-Polypectomy Surveillance: a Multicenter Real-Time Analysis.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2026Article
- Development and validation of multivariable prognostic machine learning models to identify patients at risk for inadequate bowel preparation when undergoing colonoscopy: a prospective, multicentre study.BMJ open gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Appropriateness of Recommendations for Surveillance Colonoscopy After Polypectomy-A Comparison of Adherence to the 2012 and 2020 USMSTF Guidelines.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2025Article
- Quality Indicators for Colonoscopy.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Adherence to follow-up and resource use after abnormal FIT-screening: Evaluation of the Danish colorectal cancer screening program.Endoscopy international open · 2024Article
- Establishment of a risk prediction model for bowel preparation failure prior to colonoscopy.BMC cancer · 2024Article
- Boston bowel preparation scale score 6 has more missed lesions compared with 7-9.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Low Incidence of Colorectal Advanced Neoplasia During Surveillance in Individuals with a Family History of Colorectal Cancer.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2023Article
- Endoscopists' recommendations after a false positive multitarget stool DNA test: results from a multicenter study.iGIE : innovation, investigation and insights · 2023Article
- Adherence to Recommendations for Repeat Surveillance After Publication of New Postpolypectomy Guidelines.Gastro hep advances · 2023Article
- Prevalence of Forceps Polypectomy of Nondiminutive Polyps Is Substantial But Modifiable.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2022Article
- Clinician based decision tool to guide recommended interval between colonoscopies: development and evaluation pilot study.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2022Article
- Recommendations for follow-up interval after colonoscopy with inadequate bowel preparation in a national colonoscopy quality registry.Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2022Article
- Real-word evaluation of differences in bowel preparation for colonoscopy between the digestive and the non-digestive physicians: A retrospective study.Frontiers in gastroenterology (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Adherence to Surveillance Guidelines after the Removal of Colorectal Polyps: A Multinational, Multicenter, Prospective Survey.Gut and liver · 2021Article
- Clinical care pathway program versus open-access system: a study on appropriateness, quality, and efficiency in the delivery of colonoscopy in the colorectal cancer.Internal and emergency medicine · 2021Article
- Trainee participation during screening colonoscopy does not affect ADR at subsequent surveillance, but may result in early follow-up.Endoscopy international open · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
14 authors at 10 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND &
aimsEndoscopists do not routinely follow guidelines to survey individuals with low-risk adenomas (LRAs; 1-2 small tubular adenomas, < 1 cm) every 5-10 years for colorectal cancer; many recommend shorter surveillance intervals for these individuals. We aimed to identify the reasons that endoscopists recommend shorter surveillance intervals for some individuals with LRAs and determine whether timing affects outcomes at follow-up examinations.
methodsWe collected data from 1560 individuals (45-75 years old) who participated in a prospective chemoprevention trial (of vitamin D and calcium) from 2004 through 2008. Participants in the trial had at least 1 adenoma, detected at their index colonoscopy, and were recommended to receive follow-up colonoscopy examinations at 3 or 5 years after adenoma identification, as recommended by the endoscopist. For this analysis we collected data from only participants with LRAs. These data included characteristics of participants and endoscopists and findings from index and follow-up colonoscopies. Primary endpoints were frequency of recommending shorter (3-year) vs longer (5-year) surveillance intervals, factors associated with these recommendations, and effect on outcome, determined at the follow-up colonoscopy.
resultsA 3-year surveillance interval was recommended for 594 of the subjects (38.1%). Factors most significantly associated with recommendation of 3-year vs a 5-year surveillance interval included African American race (relative risk [RR] to white, 1.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.14-1.75), Asian/Pacific Islander ethnicity (RR to white, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.22-2.43), detection of 2 adenomas at the index examination (RR vs 1 adenoma, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.27-1.71), more than 3 serrated polyps at the index examination (RR=2.16, 95% CI, 1.59-2.93), or index examination with fair or poor quality bowel preparation (RR vs excellent quality, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.66-2.83). Other factors that had a significant association with recommendation for a 3-year surveillance interval included family history of colorectal cancer and detection of 1-2 serrated polyps at the index examination. In comparisons of outcomes, we found no significant differences between the 3-year vs 5-year recommendation groups in proportions of subjects found to have 1 or more adenomas (38.8% vs 41.7% respectively; P = .27), advanced adenomas (7.7% vs 8.2%; P = .73) or clinically significant serrated polyps (10.0% vs 10.3%; P = .82) at the follow-up colonoscopy.
conclusionsPossibly influenced by patients' family history, race, quality of bowel preparation, or number or size of polyps, endoscopists frequently recommend 3-year surveillance intervals instead of guideline-recommended intervals of 5 years or longer for individuals with LRAs. However, at the follow-up colonoscopy, similar proportions of participants have 1 or more adenomas, advanced adenomas, or serrated polyps. These findings support the current guideline recommendations of performing follow-up examinations of individuals with LRAs at least 5 years after the index 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.