Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30625264›Full record

ReviewClinical endoscopy2019

Screening Relevance of Sessile Serrated Polyps.

Charles J Kahi

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical endoscopy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Cost-Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Surveillance in Hodgkin Lymphoma Survivors Treated with Procarbazine and/or Infradiaphragmatic Radiotherapy.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2022
    Article
  4. Impact of looping on premalignant polyp detection during colonoscopy.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2022
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Charles J KahiDepartment of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Indiana University School of Medicine

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Conventional adenomas have historically been considered to be the only screening-relevant colorectal cancer (CRC) precursor lesion. The prevailing paradigm was that most CRCs arise along the chromosomal instability pathway, where adenomas accumulate incremental genetic alterations over time, leading eventually to malignancy. However, it is now recognized that this "conventional" pathway accounts for only about two-thirds of CRCs. The serrated pathway is responsible for most of the remainder, and is a disproportionate contributor to postcolonoscopy CRC. Hallmarks of the serrated pathway are mutations in the BRAF gene, high levels of methylation of promoter CpG islands, and the sessile serrated polyp (SSP). Accumulating evidence shows that SSPs can be considered adenoma-equivalent from the standpoint of CRC screening. SSPs have a higher prevalence than previously thought, and appear to have a relatively long dwell time similar to that of conventional adenomas. In addition, SSPs, whether sporadic or as part of the serrated polyposis syndrome, are associated with increased risk of synchronous and metachronous neoplasia. These features collectively support that SSPs are highly relevant to CRC prevention.

Indexed as

ColonoscopyColorectal neoplasmsScreening

Identifiers

PMID30625264
PMCPMC6547343
OpenAlexW2908615741

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.