Endoscopic characterization of small colonic polyps: baseline performance of experienced endoscopists is no different to that of medical students.

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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Effect of gastroenterology resident use of a social network workgroup on skills in characterizing colorectal neoplasia: Prospective study.Endoscopy international open · 2025
   Article
2. Mucosal imaging in colon polyps: New advances and what the future may hold.World journal of gastroenterology · 2022
   Review
3. Video clips compared with high-definition still images for characterization of colorectal neoplastic lesions: a randomized comparative prospective study.Endoscopy international open · 2021
   Article
4. Training methods in optical diagnosis and characterization of colorectal polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Endoscopy international open · 2021
   Article

Corrections and comments

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

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.