ArticleBMC gastroenterology2019
Cancer risk in microscopic colitis: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 2019. 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, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- Microscopic Colitis: An Underestimated Disease of Growing Importance.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Article
- Risk Factors of Young-Onset Colorectal Cancer: Analysis of a Large Population-Based Registry.Canadian journal of gastroenterology & hepatology · 2022Article
- Insights into the underlying mechanisms and clinical management of microscopic colitis in relation to other gastrointestinal disorders.Gastroenterology report · 2022Review
- European guidelines on microscopic colitis: United European Gastroenterology and European Microscopic Colitis Group statements and recommendations.United European gastroenterology journal · 2021Article
- Controversials of Microscopic Colitis.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Review
- Patients With Microscopic Colitis Have Altered Levels of Inhibitory and Stimulatory Biomarkers in Colon Biopsies and Sera Compared to Non-inflamed Controls.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe long-term natural history of microscopic colitis (MC) (collagenous colitis (CC), lymphocytic colitis (LC)), traditionally considered relapsing but non-progressive diseases, is poorly defined. Whether persistent histologic inflammation in such diseases is associated with an increased risk of colorectal neoplasia (CRN) or extracolonic cancers has not been robustly established.
methodsThis retrospective cohort included diagnosed with MC at a referral center. Rates of CRN and extracolonic cancer were compared to patients undergoing screening colonoscopy (n = 306) and to the United States population using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End-Results (SEER) program. Standardized incidence ratios (SIR) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated and multivariable regression models used to identify the effect of MC diagnosis and severity on cancer risk.
resultsOur study included 221 patients with microscopic colitis (112 CC, 109 LC) among whom 77% were women. Compared to the colonoscopy control population, MC was associated with similar odds of tubular adenoma (Odds ratio (OR) 1.07, 95% CI 0.69-1.66) or villous adenoma (OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.17-9.42). Compared to patients with a single episode of MC, those with 2 or more episodes had similar risk of colon cancer (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.20-3.39) or tubular adenoma (OR 1.49 95% CI 0.83-2.67). We also identified no statistical increase in the rates of cancer in the MC population compared to US-SEER data.
conclusionMicroscopic colitis was not associated with increased risk of CRN and extracolonic cancers when compared to controls undergoing colonoscopy or the US SEER population.
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.