Observational studyMedicine2017
Polyp missing rate and its associated risk factors of referring hospitals for endoscopic resection of advanced colorectal neoplasia.
Observational study in Medicine, 2017. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Establishment and evaluation of a nomogram predicting risks of missed diagnoses of colorectal polyps.BMC gastroenterology · 2022Article
- Detection of Postcolonoscopy Colorectal Neoplasia by Multi-target Stool DNA.Clinical and translational gastroenterology · 2021Article
- Integrated Imaging Methodology Detects Claudin-1 Expression in Premalignant Nonpolypoid and Polypoid Colonic Epithelium in Mice.Clinical and translational gastroenterology · 2020Article
- Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Missed polyps are frequently observed in surveillance colonoscopy or referral resection. We evaluated the polyp missing rate and its associated risk factors in patients who were referred to a tertiary hospital for endoscopic resection of advanced colorectal neoplasia.A total of 388 patients with advanced neoplasia who underwent colonoscopy in their referring hospitals and only endoscopic resection without total colonoscopy in Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital from 2009 to 2014 and who underwent surveillance colonoscopy within 6 to 12 months were retrospectively analyzed.The per-patient missing rate for polyps, adenomas, and advanced neoplasia in referring hospital were 58.2% (226 cases), 47.2% (183 cases), and 5.7% (22 cases), respectively. The advanced neoplasia in surveillance colonoscopy comprised the following: ≥1 cm lesions (11 cases, 50%), high-grade dysplasia (4 cases, 18.2%), villous adenoma (4 cases, 18.2%), and invasive cancer (3 cases, 13.6%). Risk factors for missed adenomas in multivariate analysis were ≥60 years (P = .004), male (P <.001), and no usage of the cap-assisted colonoscopy (P = .015). Missed polyps/adenomas were most frequent in the ascending colon (P <.001).The missing rate for polyps/adenomas of referring hospitals was higher than expected. Especially, patients with old age or male, or no usage of cap-assisted colonoscopy on initial colonoscopy were at increased risk of missed adenoma. Careful complete colonoscopy during referral resection or early surveillance colonoscopy is mandatory in the patients with advanced colorectal neoplasia and unknown-quality 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.