ArticleEndoscopy international open2017
Incidental colorectal focal
Article in Endoscopy international open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Focal incidental colorectal fluorodeoxyglucose uptake: Should it be spotlighted?World journal of clinical cases · 2024Article
- Assessment of water enema PET/CT: an effective imaging technique for the diagnosis of incidental colorectalBMC medical imaging · 2024Article
- Evaluation of patients via colonoscopy who underwent positron emission tomography/computerized tomography due to colon involvement.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2023Article
- Prevalence and Clinical Significance of Incidental FocalMolecular imaging and radionuclide therapy · 2022Article
- Incidental analWorld journal of clinical cases · 2020Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND STUDY
aimsThe relevance of incidental colorectal focal PATIENTS AND
methodsPET/CT imaging characteristics were reviewed by a nuclear physician who was blinded to endoscopic and histopathological findings to determine the location of FDG uptake sites and to measure the maximum standardized uptake values (SUVmax) and metabolic volume (MV). Endoscopic findings were categorized as malignant lesions (ML), high-risk polyps (HRP), low-risk polyps (LRP) or other non-neoplastic lesions (NNL).
resultsSeventy patients with 84 foci of FDG uptake were included. The proportions of true-positive (lesions found at colonoscopy at the same location) and false-positive (no lesion at colonoscopy) PET/CT findings were 65.5 % (n = 55) and 34.5 % (n = 29). Median SUVmax values did not differ between true-positive and false-positive findings (
conclusionOur study demonstrates that follow-up complete colonoscopy is mandatory in all patients with incidental colorectal focal
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.