Observational studyMedicine2018
Adenoma miss rate determined by very shortly repeated colonoscopy: Retrospective analysis of data from a single tertiary medical center in China.
Observational study in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Telemedicine and AI-supported diagnostics in the daily routine of visceral medicine].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Article
- Effectiveness of switching endoscopists for repeat surveillance colonoscopy: a retrospective study.BMC gastroenterology · 2023Article
- Risk Factors Related to Polyp Miss Rate of Short-Term Repeated Colonoscopy.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2023Article
- Establishment and evaluation of a nomogram predicting risks of missed diagnoses of colorectal polyps.BMC gastroenterology · 2022Article
- Short-term aspirin and statin chemoprophylaxis did not reduce the risk of developing advanced adenomatous polyps in Black patients.BMC gastroenterology · 2021Article
- Biomolecular imaging of colorectal tumor lesions using a FITC-labeled scFv-Cκ fragment antibody.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Impact of screening and follow-up colonoscopy adenoma sensitivity on colorectal cancer screening outcomes in the CRC-AIM microsimulation model.Cancer medicine · 2021Article
- Training a computer-aided polyp detection system to detect sessile serrated adenomas using public domain colonoscopy videos.Endoscopy international open · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Adenoma miss rate (AMR) has been calculated in several tandem colonoscopy studies, but it costs overmuch to carry out a clinical trial.We aimed to put forward AMR by taking advantage of retrospective data, and to judge the comparability between AMRs from prospective and retrospective data.Data of the patients accepting repeated colonoscopies during January to September 2016 was retrospectively collected and analyzed. Information was recorded, including bowel preparation quality of the first colonoscopy, size, location, histology and whether missed within the first colonoscopy of each single adenoma. AMR was compared by different risk factors through χ test and multivariable logistic regression.Around 267 adenomas were detected during 309 pairs of repeated colonoscopies, of which 66 were missed during the first colonoscopies. AMRs of the lesions small in size, nonadvanced in histology, in poor bowel preparation context and located in the proximal colon, were significantly higher than the opposite ones, and old age and male were related to adenoma missing (P < .05). In multivariable logistic regression analysis, adenoma-related factors (diminutive in size, poor bowel preparation and located in ascending colon, transverse colon or sigmoid colon), and patient-related factors (older than 60 years, male and poor bowel preparation) were found to be independently associated with missing adenomas (P < .05).AMR of retrospective data is comparable to that of tandem studies. Several risk factors influence AMR dramatically, which should be paid attention to.
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.