ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2020
Similar Adenoma Detection Rates in Colonoscopic Procedures of Patients with Spinal Cord Injury Compared to Controls.
Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Faecal occult blood testing in persons aged 50-74 years with established spinal cord injury: a prospective case series.Spinal cord series and cases · 2025Article
- Water exchange technique improves colonoscopy in patients with spinal cord injury: Results of a matched cohort study.Endoscopy international open · 2024Article
- Effects of Online Home Nursing Care Model Application on Patients with Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury.Risk management and healthcare policy · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCancer is a major cause of death in patients with spinal cord injury (SCI). Preventive strategies, such as colonoscopy, deal with higher burdens that may lead to lower quality.
aimsThe primary objective was to evaluate the adenoma detection rate. Secondary objectives were to investigate other quality indicators regarding bowel preparation, sedation, and endoscopy.
methodsConsecutive SCI patients who had undergone colonoscopy from 2003 to 2014 were assigned to a control group matched for age, gender, and year of procedure and reviewed retrospectively.
resultsBowel preparation lasted longer (3.6 ± 1.5 vs. 1.2 ± 0.6 days, p = 0.001), achieved unsatisfactory cleansing results more often (23.7 vs. 3.6%) and caused more adverse events in 236 SCI compared to 414 control patients. Colonoscopy needed a longer time (36.9 vs. 25.0 min) and remained incomplete more often (24.6 vs. 4.6%), resulting in more re-colonoscopies (14.8 vs. 4.3%). Endoscopy- and sedation-related adverse events were equal. However, neither overall nor size-dependent polyp (30.9 vs. 34.8%), adenoma (21.2 vs. 21.0%), advanced adenoma (6.8 vs. 7.2%), or cancer (1.7 vs. 2.0%) detection rates differed.
conclusionDespite intensified protocols, bowel preparation shows inferior results in SCI patients; colonoscopy needs more effort to succeed but achieves a comparable quality.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31468268What 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.