ArticleIntestinal research2017
Determining the optimal surveillance interval after a colonoscopic polypectomy for the Korean population?
Article in Intestinal research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Guideline
- Post-polypectomy surveillance interval and advanced neoplasia detection rates: a multicenter, retrospective cohort study.Endoscopy · 2022Trial
- Article
- Comparison of Risk of Metachronous Advanced Colorectal Neoplasia in Patients with Sporadic Adenomas Aged < 50 Versus ≥ 50 years: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Article
- Urine-NMR metabolomics for screening of advanced colorectal adenoma and early stage colorectal cancer.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Histologic discrepancy between endoscopic forceps biopsy and endoscopic mucosal resection specimens of colorectal polyp in actual clinical practice.Intestinal research · 2018Article
- Quality is the Key for Emerging Issues of Population-Based Colonoscopy Screening.Clinical endoscopy · 2018Review
- Quality is the key for emerging issues of population-based colonoscopy screening.Intestinal research · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsWestern surveillance strategies cannot be directly adapted to the Korean population. The aim of this study was to estimate the risk of metachronous neoplasia and the optimal surveillance interval in the Korean population.
methodsClinical and pathological data from index colonoscopy performed between June 2006 and July 2008 and who had surveillance colonoscopies up to May 2015 were compared between low- and high-risk adenoma (LRA and HRA) groups. The 3- and 5-year cumulative risk of metachronous colorectal neoplasia in both groups were compared.
resultsAmong 895 eligible patients, surveillance colonoscopy was performed in 399 (44.6%). Most (83.3%) patients with LRA had a surveillance colonoscopy within 5 years and 70.2% of patients with HRA had a surveillance colonoscopy within 3 years. The cumulative risk of metachronous advanced adenoma was 3.2% within 5 years in the LRA group and only 1.7% within 3 years in the HRA group. The risk of metachronous neoplasia was similar between the surveillance interval of <5 and ≥5 years in the LRA group; however, it was slightly higher at surveillance interval of ≥3 than <3 years in the HRA group (9.4% vs. 2.4%). In multivariate analysis, age and the ≥3-year surveillance interval were significant independent risk factors for metachronous advanced adenoma (
conclusionsPatients had a surveillance colonoscopy before the recommended guidelines despite a low risk of metachronous neoplasia. However, the risk of metachronous advanced adenoma was increased in elderly patients and those with a ≥3-year surveillance interval.
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.