ArticleAnnals of surgical treatment and research2018
Anatomical distribution and detection rate of colorectal neoplasms according to age in the colonoscopic screening of a Korean population.
Article in Annals of surgical treatment and research, 2018. 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of β-catenin Expression by Immunohistochemistry in Colorectal Adenoma and Carcinoma and its Correlation with Pathological Prognostic Factors.Iranian journal of pathology · 2026Article
- Colonic Polyp Study: Differences in Adenoma Characteristics Based on Colonoscopy History over 5-Year Follow-Up Period.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Prevalence and risk factors of colorectal cancer in Asia.Intestinal research · 2019Review
- Outcomes of screening and surveillance in people with two parents affected by colorectal cancers: experiences from the Familial Bowel Cancer Service.Hereditary cancer in clinical practice · 2019Article
- Trends in colorectal cancer in Iraq over two decades: incidence, mortality, topography and morphology.Annals of Saudi medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeBecause data as a basis for the determination of proper age and modality for screening of colorectal neoplasms is lacking, we evaluated detection rates and anatomical distribution of colorectal neoplasms according to age in healthy individuals who underwent total colonoscopy for health checkup.
methodsA total of 16,100 cases that had received the colonoscopic examination from January to December in 2014 were analyzed. The total number of individuals who received total colonoscopy were divided by the number of individuals harboring colorectal adenoma to calculate the detection rate of colorectal adenoma. Individuals ≤50 years old were classified as young-age group and aged >50 were old-age group. Differences in anatomical locations of colorectal neoplasms were analyzed in the 2 age groups by chi-square test. Risk factors for colorectal adenoma in each age group were analyzed using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses.
resultsDetection rates of colorectal adenoma were 13.7% in all cases and 12.8% for those in their 40's. The main anatomical location of colorectal adenoma was proximal colon in both age groups (P < 0.001). Hyperplastic polyp was mainly distributed to the distal colon in both age groups (P < 0.001). Distal colon was the major site for colorectal cancer in the old-age group (P = 0.001). Proximal location of neoplasms was a risk factor for colorectal adenoma in both age groups with multivariate analysis.
conclusionThese data could be the bases for earlier initiation of screening for colorectal neoplasms with total colonoscopy to detect clinically significant colorectal polyps.
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.