Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31183796›Full record

Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2020

A prospective randomized study comparing jumbo biopsy forceps to cold snare for the resection of diminutive colorectal polyps.

Shireena Desai, Samir Gupta, Nedret Copur-Dahi, Mary L Krinsky

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04666194 (A Pilot Randomized Trial of Polypectomy Techniques for 4-6 mm Colonic Polyps), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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.

NCT04666194 nacompletednot on this map

A Pilot Randomized Trial of Polypectomy Techniques for 4-6 mm Colonic Polyps

TypeinterventionalSponsorIndiana UniversityRan2009 to 2019Enrolled353ConditionsColon PolypsArmsCold forceps, Cold snare, Hot snare
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Quality indicators for colonoscopy.Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2024
    Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Quality Indicators for Colonoscopy.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Endoscopic polypectomy devices.VideoGIE : an official video journal of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · 2021
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Shireena DesaiKaiser Permanente, Irvine Medical Center, Irvine, CA, 92618, USA.
Samir GuptaDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of California San Diego Health, 9300 Campus Point Drive, La Jolla, CA, 92037, USA.
Nedret Copur-DahiDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of California San Diego Health, 9300 Campus Point Drive, La Jolla, CA, 92037, USA.
Mary L KrinskyDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of California San Diego Health, 9300 Campus Point Drive, La Jolla, CA, 92037, USA. mkrinsky@ucsd.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-4172-9899
University of California San Diego · USKaiser Permanente Orange County Irvine Medical Center · USUC San Diego Health System · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsThe quality of colonoscopy is essential for successful colon cancer screening. Inadequate polypectomy technique can contribute to incomplete polypectomy. The primary outcome of this study was to compare the incomplete resection rate (IRR) for cold jumbo forceps polypectomy (JFP) and cold snare polypectomy (CSP). Secondary outcomes were to compare the rates of tissue retrieval and rates of procedure-related complications.

methodsThis prospective randomized parallel-group study assigned patients undergoing colonoscopy to jumbo biopsy forceps polypectomy (JFP) or cold snare polypectomy (CSP) for polyps ≤ 6 mm in size. After polyp removal was complete, the base of the polypectomy site was biopsied to evaluate for the presence of residual polyp tissue.

resultsThe resection quality was evaluated in 151 patients with 261 polyps ≤ 6 mm. The IRR was 9.6% (25/261) for all polyps, 11.1% (16/144) for JFP, and 7.7% (9/117) for CSP (P = 0.41). Failure of tissue retrieval was noted in 0/144 (0%) of JFP and 5/117 (4.3%) of CSP (P = 0.02). There were no procedure-related complications in either group.

conclusionColon polyps are incompletely resected in a small but potentially significant percentage of cases. IRR are similar with the use of cold jumbo forceps and cold snare. Use of cold jumbo forceps may result in more successful tissue retrieval as compared to cold snare.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overBiopsyColonic PolypsColonoscopyDigestive System Surgical ProceduresFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesSurgical InstrumentsAdenomatous polypsBiopsy forceps polypectomyCold snare polypectomy (CSP)Incomplete resection rate (IRR)Jumbo forceps polypectomy (JFP)Small colonic polyps

Identifiers

PMID31183796
OpenAlexW2950228255

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.