Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32690602›Full record

ArticleGut2021

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on UK endoscopic activity and cancer detection: a National Endoscopy Database Analysis.

Matthew D Rutter, Matthew Brookes, Thomas J Lee, Peter Rogers, Linda Sharp

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Gut, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07341126 (Surveillance Digital Rectoscopy After Local Excision of Rectal Tumours), which is not on this map. Cited by 171 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
171citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
19.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT07341126 not yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Surveillance Digital Rectoscopy After Local Excision of Rectal Tumours

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity of EdinburghRan2026 to 2027Enrolled30ConditionsBowel Cancer, Polyp Rectal, Rectal Cancer, Rectal AdenocarcinomaArmsLumenEye X1 digital rectoscope
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

171 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 283 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Preoperative anastomotic evaluation prior to ileostomy closure: A 5-year UK survey, systematic review, and meta-analysis.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Guideline
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

111 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Matthew D RutterGastroenterology, University Hospital of North Tees, Stockton-on-Tees, UK matt.rutter@nhs.net.ORCID 0000-0001-9507-0295
Matthew BrookesDepartment of Gastroenterology, New Cross Hospital, Wolverhampton, UK.
Thomas J LeeGastroenterology Research, Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, North Shields, UK.
Peter RogersWeblogik, Ipswich, UK.
Linda SharpPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9515-1722
Ipswich Hospital · GBNewcastle University · GBNorthumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity Hospital of North Tees · GBUniversity of Wolverhampton · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe COVID-19 pandemic has had a major global impact on endoscopic services. This reduced capacity, along with public reluctance to undergo endoscopy during the pandemic, might result in excess mortality from delayed cancer diagnosis. Using the UK's National Endoscopy Database (NED), we performed the first national analysis of the impact of the pandemic on endoscopy services and endoscopic cancer diagnosis.

designWe developed a NED COVID-19 module incorporating procedure-level data on all endoscopic procedures. Three periods were designated: pre-COVID (6 January 2020 to 15 March), transition (16-22 March) and COVID-impacted (23 March-31 May). National, regional and procedure-specific analyses were performed. The average weekly number of cancers, proportion of missing cancers and cancer detection rates were calculated.

resultsA weekly average of 35 478 endoscopy procedures were performed in the pre-COVID period. Activity in the COVID-impacted period reduced to 12% of pre-COVID levels; at its low point, activity was only 5%, recovering to 20% of pre-COVID activity by study end. Although more selective vetting significantly increased the per-procedure cancer detection rate (pre-COVID 1.91%; COVID-impacted 6.61%; p<0.001), the weekly number of cancers detected decreased by 58%. The proportion of missing cancers ranged from 19% (pancreatobiliary) to 72% (colorectal).

conclusionThis national analysis demonstrates the remarkable impact that the pandemic has had on endoscopic services, which has resulted in a substantial and concerning reduction in cancer detection. Major, urgent efforts are required to restore endoscopy capacity to prevent an impending cancer healthcare crisis.

Indexed as

AdultAgedCOVID-19Endoscopy, GastrointestinalFemaleGastrointestinal NeoplasmsHumansMaleMiddle AgedPandemicsPractice Patterns, Physicians'SARS-CoV-2United Kingdomgastrointesinal endoscopygastrointestinal cancerhealth service research

Identifiers

PMID32690602
OpenAlexW3042505083

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.