ArticleGut2020
Randomised comparison of postpolypectomy surveillance intervals following a two-round baseline colonoscopy: the Japan Polyp Study Workgroup.
Article in Gut, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 58 citations in OpenAlex.
- Spectral focused imaging enables enhanced colorectal adenoma detection: a multicenter, parallel randomized controlled trial.BMC medicine · 2026Trial
- Trial
- Efficacy of international web-based educational intervention in the detection of high-risk flat and depressed colorectal lesions higher (CATCH project) with a video: Randomized trial.Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2022Trial
- Reducing adenoma miss rate of colonoscopy assisted by artificial intelligence: a multicenter randomized controlled trial.Journal of gastroenterology · 2021Trial
- Management of Colorectal Sessile Serrated Lesions in Elderly Patients.Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2026Review
- Article
- Combating Post-colonoscopy Colorectal Cancer: Insight from the Trials and Cohort Studies.The Korean journal of gastroenterology = Taehan Sohwagi Hakhoe chi · 2025Review
- Interval Colorectal Cancers in a Fecal Immunochemical Test-Based Screening Program.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Comparison of remimazolam and midazolam for sedation during colonoscopy in Japanese patients: A propensity score matching analysis.DEN open · 2025Article
- Surveillance after Endoscopic Resection for Colorectal Tumors: A Comprehensive Review.Digestion · 2025Review
- Enhancing colorectal cancer screening in high-risk population through fecal immunochemical test surveillance: Results from a surveillance program.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
- Usefulness and safety of new ultrasmall-diameter colonoscope for cases with difficult insertion: a retrospective study.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Post-polypectomy surveillance: the present and the future.Clinical endoscopy · 2022Review
- Challenges in artificial intelligence for polyp detection.Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 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
26 authors at 18 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess whether follow-up colonoscopy after polypectomy at 3 years only, or at 1 and 3 years would effectively detect advanced neoplasia (AN), including nonpolypoid colorectal neoplasms (NP-CRNs).
designA prospective multicentre randomised controlled trial was conducted in 11 Japanese institutions. The enrolled participants underwent a two-round baseline colonoscopy (interval: 1 year) to remove all neoplastic lesions. Subsequently, they were randomly assigned to undergo follow-up colonoscopy at 1 and 3 years (2-examination group) or at 3 years only (1-examination group). The incidence of AN, defined as lesions with low-grade dysplasia ≥10 mm, high-grade dysplasia or invasive cancer, at follow-up colonoscopy was evaluated.
resultsA total of 3926 patients were enrolled in this study. The mean age was 57.3 (range: 40-69) years, and 2440 (62%) were male. Of these, 2166 patients were assigned to two groups (2-examination: 1087, 1-examination: 1079). Overall, we detected 29 AN in 28 patients at follow-up colonoscopy in both groups. On per-protocol analysis (701 in 2-examination vs 763 in 1-examination group), the incidence of AN was similar between the two groups (1.7% vs 2.1%, p=0.599). The results of the non-inferiority test were significant (p=0.017 in per-protocol, p=0.001 in intention-to-treat analysis). NP-CRNs composed of dominantly of the detected AN (62%, 18/29), and most of them were classified into laterally spreading tumour non-granular type (83%, 15/18).
conclusionAfter a two-round baseline colonoscopy, follow-up colonoscopy at 3 years detected AN, including NP-CRNs, as effectively as follow-up colonoscopies performed after 1 and 3 years.
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.