Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33481809›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Risk stratification for advanced colorectal neoplasia based on the findings of the index and first surveillance colonoscopies.

Munenori Honda, Hideaki Naoe, Ryosuke Gushima, Hideaki Miyamoto, Masakuni Tateyama, Kouichi Sakurai, Yasushi Oda, Yoshitaka Murakami, Yasuhito Tanaka

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.1field-weighted citation impact, top 58% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Munenori HondaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Kumamoto University Hospital, Kumamoto, Japan.
Hideaki NaoeDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Kumamoto University Hospital, Kumamoto, Japan.
Ryosuke GushimaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Kumamoto University Hospital, Kumamoto, Japan.
Hideaki MiyamotoDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Kumamoto University Hospital, Kumamoto, Japan.
Masakuni TateyamaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Kumamoto University Hospital, Kumamoto, Japan.
Kouichi SakuraiHattori Clinic, Kumamoto, Japan.
Yasushi OdaOda GI Endoscopy and Gastroenterology Clinic, Kumamoto, Japan.
Yoshitaka MurakamiDepartment of Medical Statistics, Toho University, Tokyo, Japan.
Yasuhito TanakaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Kumamoto University Hospital, Kumamoto, Japan.
Kumamoto University Hospital · JPHattori Botanical Laboratory · JPKumamoto Orthopedic Surgery Hospital · JPToho University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Risk stratification by index colonoscopy is well established for first surveillance endoscopy, but whether the previous two colonoscopies affect the subsequent advanced neoplasias has not been established. Therefore, the subsequent risk based on the findings of the index and first surveillance colonoscopies were investigated. This retrospective, cohort study was conducted in two clinics and included participants who had undergone two or more colonoscopies after index colonoscopy. High-risk was defined as advanced adenoma (≥ 1 cm, or tubulovillous or villous histology, or high-grade dysplasia). Based on the findings of the index and first surveillance colonoscopies, patients were classified into four categories: category A (both colonoscopy findings were normal), category B (no high-risk findings both times), category C (one time high-risk finding), and category D (high-risk findings both times). The incidence of subsequent advanced neoplasia was examined in each category. A total of 13,426 subjects were included and surveyed during the study periods. The subjects in category D had the highest risk of advanced neoplasia (27.4%, n = 32/117). The subjects in category A had the lowest risk (4.0%, n = 225/5,583). The hazard ratio for advanced neoplasia of category D compared to category A was 9.90 (95% Confidence interval 6.82-14.35, P<0.001). Classification based on the findings of index and first surveillance colonoscopies more effectively stratifies the risk of subsequent advanced neoplasia, resulting in more proper allocation of colonoscopy resources after two consecutive colonoscopies.

Indexed as

ColonoscopyEarly Detection of CancerAdenomaAgedColorectal NeoplasmsFemaleHumansIncidenceMaleMiddle AgedProportional Hazards ModelsRetrospective StudiesRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID33481809
PMCPMC7822265
OpenAlexW3124155184

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.