ArticleWorld journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy2017
Clinical predictors for sessile serrated polyposis syndrome: A case control study.
Article in World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy, 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association of lifestyle and dietary preferences with precancerous serrated polyps: a hospital-based case-control study in Guangzhou, China.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Serrated polyposis syndrome: defining the epidemiology and predicting the risk of dysplasia.BMC gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Article
- Colorectal sessile serrated lesion with large size or synchronous neoplasm: a prospective study.European journal of gastroenterology & hepatology · 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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo compared individuals with serrated polyposis syndrome (SPS) to those with sessile serrated adenoma (SSA) and adenomas in the setting of endoscopists with high adenoma detection rates at a secondary and tertiary academic centre.
methodsRetrospectively we collated the clinical, endoscopic and histological features of all patients with SPS at St Vincent's public and private hospital in the last 3 years. Patients were identified by searching through 2 pathology databases. Variables explored included smoking status, symptoms, and family history of concurrent colorectal cancer, number and location of polyps. Patients with SPS were matched to two cohorts (1) patients with SSA not meeting World Health Organization (WHO) criteria for SPS over 3 years; and (2) patients with exclusively adenomas. The control cases were also matched according to gender and endoscopist. Adenoma detection rates ranged from 25% to 40%.
resultsForty patients with SPS were identified and matched with 40 patients in each control group. In total 15452 colonoscopies were performed over the study period which amounts to a prevalence of 1: 384 patients (0.26%) with SPS. Fourteen patients (35%) required more than 1 year to accumulate enough polyps to reach WHO criteria for SPS. The diagnosis of SPS was largely incidental and 5% SPS patients were diagnosed with colorectal cancer over 3 years. The chance of detecting a meta-synchronous adenoma was similar in those with SPS (42%) and those with SSA (55%),
conclusionThe prevalence of SPS in our study was 0.26%. The vast majority of patients diagnosed with SPS were women. As a group, they were significantly younger compared to patients with SSA not meeting WHO criteria and patients with adenomatous polyps by more than a decade. Patients with SPS were no more likely to have a first degree relative with colorectal cancer or smoking history than the other two groups. Patients with serrated polyps were more likely to be Caucasian than patients with adenomas.
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.