ArticleMedicine2020
Inspection and polypectomy during both insertion and withdrawal or only during withdrawal of colonoscopy?: A protocol for systematic review and meta analysis.
Article in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Relationship Between Colonoscopy Practice Style, Operator Ergonomics and Procedure Quality.Cureus · 2023Article
- Artificial intelligence in gastroenterology: Where are we heading?Endoscopy international open · 2022Article
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 at 1 institution in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCurrent evidence supporting additional inspection and polypectomy during insertion of colonoscopy is limited. We plan to provide a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the yield of inspection and polypectomy during both insertion and withdrawal versus the traditional practice of inspection and polypectomy during withdrawal only. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Randomised controlled trials evaluating inspection and polypectomy during both insertion and withdrawal versus inspection and polypectomy during withdrawal only will be searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar, from database inception to 31 May 2020. Data on study design, participant characteristics, and outcomes will be extracted. Primary outcomes to be assessed are adenoma detection rate. Secondary outcomes include polyp detection rate, advanced adenoma detection rate, the mean number of adenomas per patient, polyp miss rate, the mean number of adenomas per colonoscopy, procedure duration, cecal intubation rate, procedure difficulty, patient discomfort, sedation dose, and adverse events. Study quality will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Meta-analysis will be performed using RevMan V.5.3 statistical software. Data will be combined with random effect model. The results will be presented as a risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data, and weighted/standard mean difference for continuous data. Publication bias will be visualized using funnel plots. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study will not use primary data, and therefore formal ethical approval is not required. The findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and committee conferences. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION NUMBER: INPLASY202050051.
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.