ReviewIntestinal research2018
Quality is the key for emerging issues of population-based colonoscopy screening.
Review in Intestinal research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy of colonoscopic re-examination across the entire colon: a randomized controlled trial.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Trial
- Comparison of adenoma detection by colonoscopy between polypectomy performed during both insertion and withdrawal versus during withdrawal only: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Trial
- Mixed lesions in premalignant colorectal polyps.Journal of clinical biochemistry and nutrition · 2026Article
- Glycoproteomics of Gastrointestinal Cancers and Its Use in Clinical Diagnostics.Journal of proteome research · 2025Review
- The adult large bowel: describing environment morphology for effective biomedical device development.Progress in biomedical engineering (Bristol, England) · 2024Review
- Strategies to improve screening colonoscopy quality for the prevention of colorectal cancer.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2024Review
- Evaluation of the "Burgenland PREvention trial of colorectal cancer Disease with ImmunologiCal Testing" (B-PREDICT)-a population-based colorectal cancer screening program.BMC gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Challenges and Suggestions in the Management of Stomach and Colorectal Cancer in Uzbekistan: The Third Report of the Uzbekistan-Korea Oncology Consortium.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Review
- Comment on " Positive fecal immunochemical test results are associated with non-colorectal cancer mortality".The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2023Article
- Quality indicators in colonoscopy: the chasm between ideal and reality.Clinical endoscopy · 2022Review
- Gastrointestinal Cancer Prevention Policies: A Qualitative Systematic Review and Meta-Synthesis.International journal of preventive medicine · 2022Review
- Strategies to Increase the Participation Rate of Colorectal Cancer Screening.Gut and liver · 2020Article
- Intramural Hematoma and Retroperitoneal Hematoma Following a Routine Colonoscopy: An Uncommon Complication of a Common Procedure.Case reports in gastroenterologyArticle
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.