ReviewClinical endoscopy2018
Quality is the Key for Emerging Issues of Population-Based Colonoscopy Screening.
Review in Clinical endoscopy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimal Timing of Simethicone Supplement for Bowel Preparation: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial.Canadian journal of gastroenterology & hepatology · 2021Trial
- Efficacy of additional tissue sections for diminutive colorectal adenomas pathologically diagnosed as normal mucosa: a retrospective, cross-sectional study in Japan.Clinical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Explaining the Correlates of the Multi-Theory Model (MTM) of Health Behavior Change in Visual (Structural) Colorectal Cancer Screening Examinations.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- Association between Endoscopist Volume and Interval Cancers after Colonoscopy: Results from the National Colorectal Cancer Screening Program in Korea.Cancer research and treatment · 2024Article
- Strategies to improve screening colonoscopy quality for the prevention of colorectal cancer.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2024Review
- The Influence of Face Shields on the Quality of Colonoscopy in the Era of the COVID-19 Pandemic.Gut and liver · 2022Article
- Efficacy and Patient Tolerability Profiles of Probiotic Solution with Bisacodyl Versus Conventional Cleansing Solution for Bowel Preparation: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Colonoscopy is currently regarded as the gold standard and preferred method of screening for colorectal cancer (CRC). However, the benefit of colonoscopy screening may be blunted by low participation rates in population-based screening programs. Harmful effects of population-based colonoscopy screening may include complications induced by colonoscopy itself and by sedation, psychosocial distress, potential over-diagnosis, and socioeconomic burden. In addition, harmful effects of colonoscopy may increase with age and comorbidities. As the risk of adverse events in population-based colonoscopy screening may offset the benefit, the adverse events should be managed and monitored. To adopt population-based colonoscopy screening, consensus on the risks and benefits should be developed, focusing on potential harm, patient preference, socioeconomic considerations, and quality improvement of colonoscopy, as well as efficacy for CRC prevention. As suboptimal colonoscopy quality is a major pitfall of population-based screening, adequate training and regulation of screening colonoscopists should be the first step in minimizing variations in quality. Gastroenterologists should promote quality improvement, auditing, and training for colonoscopy in a population-based screening program.
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.