ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2020
Post-polypectomy surveillance colonoscopy: are we following the guidelines?
Article in International journal of colorectal disease, 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.
- Machine learning in colorectal polyp surveillance: A paradigm shift in post-endoscopic mucosal resection follow-up.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Appropriateness of Recommendations for Surveillance Colonoscopy After Polypectomy-A Comparison of Adherence to the 2012 and 2020 USMSTF Guidelines.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2025Article
- Post-polypectomy surveillance colonoscopy: Comparison of the updated guidelines.United European gastroenterology journal · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePolyps are a common finding on colonoscopy procedures. After completing polypectomy, patients are to be followed up with endoscopy. The purpose of the study was to assess the adherence of gastroenterologists to international post-polypectomy guidelines.
methodsIsraeli gastroenterologists answered a questionnaire, consisting of 30 items, regarding the recommendation for post-polypectomy surveillance following colonoscopy.
resultsOne hundred and twelve gastroenterologists, representing 23% of the total number of Israeli gastroenterologists, participated in this study, by responding to the web-based questionnaire (mean age is 47 ± 10 years, males, 74 (66%)). From the total responses, 57.4% were compatible with the updated European post-polypectomy guidelines. The recommendations appeared remarkably inappropriate when applied to polyps that were identified as having low-risk tubular adenoma, tubular adenoma with high-grade dysplasia, and small serrated adenoma. In 37.2% of questionnaires, the recommended time to follow-up colonoscopy was shorter than currently stated in the guidelines. The appropriate polypectomy technique was chosen by 62% of the responses. Gastroenterologists younger than 45 years of age adhered more strongly to the international guidelines, particularly in cases of piecemeal polypectomy or high-risk adenoma polypectomy.
conclusionsGastroenterologists follow the clinical guidelines for post-polypectomy surveillance intervals partially. 57.4% of the recommendations were compatible with the guidelines, whereas 37% of the recommendations were for shorter interval.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32152670What 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.