ReviewVisceral medicine2019
Optimizing Screening Colonoscopy: Strategies and Alternatives.
Review in Visceral medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of three sedation models for same-day painless bidirectional endoscopy: A multicenter randomized controlled trial.Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2022Trial
- Impact of age and comorbidities on colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection outcomes: Large multicenter study in a Western cohort.Endoscopy international open · 2025Article
- Article
- Evaluating the use of a customized digital navigation program to optimize bowel preparation in pediatric colonsocopy.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2023Article
- Comparison of adenoma detection in different colorectal segments between deep-sedated and unsedated colonoscopy.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Development of artificial intelligence technology in diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of colorectal cancer.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Screening colonoscopy is the most effective screening procedure for the prevention of colorectal cancer. The efficacy of colonoscopy is highly dependent on the overall quality of how this procedure is indicated, planned, prepared, and performed. The quality is directly linked to the number of polyps and/or adenomas detected or, in other words, to the number of polyps or adenomas missed during the procedure. The quality has a direct impact on the rate of interval carcinoma and on the range of how the incidence and occurrence of colorectal cancer is reduced. This review summarizes the current status on general measures and procedure improvements and standards as well as technical advances which have been suggested and established to improve the quality of polyp and adenoma detection rate. This includes selection and preparation of the patients, planning, methodological and technical performance of the procedure, and technical advances of the endoscope technology in order to improve screening results. It also covers new technologies with wide angle endoscopes (Ewave) and IT-based approaches using artificial intelligence to such as ai4GI for the polyp detection and image analysis.
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.