ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2019
Risk factors for incomplete polyp resection after cold snare polypectomy.
Article in International journal of colorectal disease, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk factors for incomplete excision of colorectal polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of cold snare polypectomy for outpatient treatment of sessile polyps smaller than 10mm.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Observational
- From advanced diagnosis to advanced resection in early neoplastic colorectal lesions: Never-ending and trending topics in the 2020s.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2022Review
- Efficacy of specimen pasting after cold snare polypectomy for pathological evaluation of horizontal margins.Endoscopy international open · 2022Article
- Management of Less Than 10-mm-Sized Pedunculated (Ip) Polyps with Thin Stalk: Hot Snare Polypectomy Versus Cold Snare Polypectomy.Digestive diseases and sciences · 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
12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIncomplete polyp resection (IPR) is recognized as a risk factor for interval colorectal cancer (ICC), and is, therefore, an important issue in polypectomy. Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) is a procedure that does not involve electrocautery and has no burn effect. Therefore, there is the possibility that the risk of ICC associated with IPR is higher in cases undergoing CSP than in those undergoing hot polypectomy. However, little is known about the risk factors for IPR after CSP. PURPOSE: Precise identification of the risk factors can lead to prevention of IPR after CSP. Therefore, we performed this observational study for accurate identification of the risk factors for IPR after CSP.
methodsMedical records of a total of 501 patients with 1177 colorectal polyps that were resected at Omori Red Cross Hospital between October 2017 and March 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. The lateral and deep margins of the resected polyps were evaluated to check for the resection completeness.
resultsAmong the 1177 polyp resections, 1163 were included in the final analysis. IPR was detected in 206 (17.7%) cases. Performance of the resection by a trainee (OR (95% CI) 1.87 (1.328-2.632); P < 0.001) was identified as an independent risk factor for IPR in patients undergoing CSP.
conclusionsPerformance of the polypectomy by a trainee was identified as a significant risk factor for IPR in patients undergoing CSP. Prospective, randomized studies are necessary in the future to develop effective methods for the prevention/control of IPR after CSP.
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.