Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29362908›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2018

Diagnostic utility of staging abdominal computerized tomography and repeat endoscopy in detecting localization errors at initial endoscopy in colorectal cancer.

Arash Azin, Trevor Wood, Dhruvin Hirpara, Emily Le Souder, Sami A Chadi, Timothy Jackson, Allan Okrainec, Fayez A Quereshy

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.1field-weighted citation impact, top 52% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Arash AzinDivision of General Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Trevor WoodDivision of General Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Dhruvin HirparaDivision of General Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Emily Le SouderFaculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Sami A ChadiDivision of General Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Timothy JacksonDivision of General Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Allan OkrainecDivision of General Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Fayez A QuereshyDivision of General Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. Fayez.Quereshy@uhn.ca.
University of Toronto · CAToronto Western Hospital · CAUniversity Health Network · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundColonoscopy has a reported localization error rate as high as 21% in detecting colorectal neoplasms. Preoperative repeat endoscopy has been shown to be protective against localization errors. There is a paucity of literature assessing the utility of staging computerized tomography (CT) and repeat endoscopy as diagnostic tools for detecting localization errors following initial endoscopy. The objective of this study is to determine the diagnostic characteristics of staging CT and repeat endoscopy in correcting localization errors at initial endoscopy.

methodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted at a large tertiary academic center between January 2006 and August 2014. All patients undergoing surgical resection for CRC were identified. Group comparisons were conducted between (1) patients that underwent only staging CT (staging CT group), and (2) patients that underwent staging CT and repeat endoscopy (repeat endoscopy group). The primary outcome was localization error correction rate for errors at initial endoscopy.

results594 patients were identified, 196 (33.0%) in the repeat endoscopy group, and 398 (77.0%) patients in the staging CT group. Error rates for each modality were as follows: initial endoscopy 8.8% (95% CI 6.5-11.0), staging CT 9.3% (95% CI 6.5-11.0), and repeat endoscopy 2.6% (95% CI 0.3-4.7); p < 0.01. Repeat endoscopy was superior to staging CT in correcting localization errors for left-sided / rectal lesions (81.2% vs. 33.3%; p < 0.01), right-sided lesions (80.0% vs. 54.5%; p = 0.21), and overall lesions (80.8% vs. 42.3%; p < 0.01). Repeat endoscopy compared to staging CT demonstrated relative risk reduction of 66.7% (95% CI 22-86%), absolute risk reduction of 38.5% (95% CI 14.2-62.8%), and odds ratio of 0.18 (95% CI 0.05-0.61) for correcting errors at initial endoscopy.

conclusionsRepeat endoscopy in colorectal cancer is superior to staging CT as a diagnostic tool for correcting localization-based errors at initial endoscopy.

Indexed as

Tomography, X-Ray ComputedAgedColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsEndoscopy, GastrointestinalFemaleHumansMaleMedical ErrorsMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingRetrospective StudiesAccuracyColonoscopyColorectal cancerComputerized axial tomographyEndoscopyTumor localization

Identifiers

PMID29362908
OpenAlexW2793778384

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.