ReviewClinics in colon and rectal surgery2018
Colonoscopic Perforations.
Review in Clinics in colon and rectal surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Quality indicators for colonoscopy.Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2024Guideline
- Post-Colonoscopy Cecal Perforation Presenting as Soft Tissue Emphysema in Ileocecal Tuberculosis: A Case Report.Journal of Brown hospital medicine · 2025Article
- Review
- Prognostic aging gene-based score for colorectal cancer: unveiling links to drug resistance, mutation burden, and personalized treatment strategies.Discover oncology · 2024Article
- Quality Indicators for Colonoscopy.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Constipation and colonoscopy.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2024Article
- Effects of sigmoidoscopy screening (including colonoscopy) on colorectal cancer: APreventive medicine reports · 2024Article
- Colon mucosal injury caused by water jet malfunction during a screening colonoscopy: A case report.World journal of clinical cases · 2022Article
- A Case of Post-Colonoscopy Cecal Perforation in a 78-Year-Old Man Responding to Conservative Management.Cureus · 2022Article
- Comparison of Preoperative CT Colonography and Colonoscopy for Esophageal Reconstruction with Colonic Interposition.Surgery research and practice · 2020Article
- Adverse events related to colonoscopy: Global trends and future challenges.World journal of gastroenterology · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Colonoscopy is the gold standard for colon cancer screening. It has led to a decrease in the incidence of colorectal cancer mortality. Colon perforation is a feared complication of this procedure with high morbidity and substantial mortality. Due to the high volume of colonoscopies performed, the absolute number of colonoscopic perforations is relatively high. It leads to a substantial cost to the patient and the health system. Understanding the mechanisms and the risk factors may help in preventing perforation. Traditionally, a laparotomy with creation of a stoma was used to address this complication. However, minimally invasive techniques such as laparoscopy and endoluminal repairs are being used more commonly now. More surgeons are favoring primary anastomosis (with or without a diverting loop ileostomy) than a Hartmann procedure.
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.