ArticleIntestinal research2018
Three-year colonoscopy surveillance after polypectomy in Korea: a Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Diseases (KASID) multicenter prospective study.
Article in Intestinal research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Navigating the Terrain of Post-Polypectomy Surveillance: Charting the Complex Landscape of Guidelines and Recurrence Risks.Canadian journal of gastroenterology & hepatology · 2026Review
- Efficacy-cost analysis of endoscopic mucosal resection and cold snare polypectomy: A propensity score matching analysis.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- Development and validation of a nomogram based on neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and fibrinogen-to-lymphocyte ratio for predicting recurrence of colorectal adenoma.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2022Article
- Postgastrectomy gastric cancer patients are at high risk for colorectal neoplasia: a case control study.Intestinal research · 2021Article
- What Is Appropriate Upper Endoscopic Interval Among Dyspeptic Patients With Previously Normal Endoscopy? A Multicenter Study With Bayesian Change Point Analysis.Journal of neurogastroenterology and motility · 2019Article
- Appropriate Surveillance Interval after Colonoscopic Polypectomy in Patients Younger than 50 Years.Journal of Korean medical science · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 10 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsColonoscopic surveillance is currently recommended after polypectomy owing to the risk of newly developed colonic neoplasia. However, few studies have investigated colonoscopy surveillance in Asia. This multicenter and prospective study was undertaken to assess the incidence of advanced adenoma based on baseline adenoma findings at 3 years after colonoscopic polypectomy.
methodsA total of 1,323 patients undergoing colonoscopic polypectomy were prospectively assigned to 3-year colonoscopy surveillance at 11 tertiary endoscopic centers. Relative risks for advanced adenoma after 3 years were calculated according to baseline adenoma characteristics.
resultsAmong 1,323 patients enrolled, 387 patients (29.3%) were followed up, and the mean follow-up interval was 31.0±9.8 months. The percentage of patients with advanced adenoma on baseline colonoscopy was higher in the surveillance group compared to the non-surveillance group (34.4% vs. 25.7%). Advanced adenoma recurrence was observed in 17 patients (4.4%) at follow-up. The risk of advanced adenoma recurrence was 2 times greater in patients with baseline advanced adenoma than in those with baseline non-advanced adenoma, though the difference was not statistically significant (6.8% [9/133] vs. 3.1% [8/254],
conclusionsA colonoscopy surveillance interval of 3 years in patients with baseline advanced adenoma can be considered appropriate.
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.