ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal oncology2019
Adherence to surveillance guidelines following colonic polypectomy is abysmal.
Article in Journal of gastrointestinal oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Imaging alternatives to colonoscopy: CT colonography and colon capsule. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) Guideline - Update 2020.European radiology · 2021Guideline
- Colorectal cancer screening in Singapore: progress, challenges and promise.Singapore medical journal · 2026Article
- Machine learning in colorectal polyp surveillance: A paradigm shift in post-endoscopic mucosal resection follow-up.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Clinician based decision tool to guide recommended interval between colonoscopies: development and evaluation pilot study.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2022Article
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
backgroundSurveillance guidelines following excision of colonic tubular adenomas are well established. However, adherence to the guidelines are rarely audited. The aim of our study was to evaluate the rate of compliance to the recommended guidelines following polyp removal.
methodsA review of a prospectively collected colonoscopy database in a single tertiary institution was conducted for all patients who underwent polypectomy in 2008. We excluded patients who were diagnosed with or had prior history of colorectal malignancy. The frequency of subsequent colonoscopic were evaluated against the recommended guidelines based on the clinico-histological characteristics of the removed polyps.
resultsThere were 419 colonoscopies with polypectomies performed in 2008. The patient cohort had a median age of 60 years (range, 26-95 years), with the most common diagnosis being tubular adenoma with low grade dysplasia (n=291, 69.5%). Adherence to Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) post-polypectomy surveillance guidelines, based on the factors such as the characteristics of the colonic polyps and bowel preparation at initial colonoscopy, was only 13.8% (n=58). There were 107 (25.5%) patients who had their surveillance endoscopy performed earlier than recommended. None of them were diagnosed with malignancy. The majority of patients (n=192, 45.8%), had surveillance scopes later than recommended or were lost to follow-up. Amongst these patients, two actually were diagnosed to have malignancy 3 and 5 years after their recommended surveillance scope date, respectively.
conclusionsThere is a very low compliance to post-polypectomy surveillance guidelines. More needs to be done to improve compliance to guidelines.
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.