ArticleWorld journal of clinical cases2022
Effect of cold snare polypectomy for small colorectal polyps.
Article in World journal of clinical cases, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Observational
- Approaches to assessing completeness of colorectal polyp resections in clinical practice: a systematic scoping review.Endoscopy · 2026Article
- Standardized Selective Clipping for Persistent Immediate Bleeding after Cold Snare Polypectomy of Small Colorectal Polyps: A Prospective Cohort Study.Endoscopy international open · 2026Article
- Development and validation of a predictive model for pathological upgrading in colorectal polyps based on endoscopic forceps biopsy.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Postoperative recovery and bleeding risk after endoscopic snare cold resection in patients with 5-15 mm colorectal polyps.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- Characteristics and risk factor analyses of high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia in older patients with colorectal polyps.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundColorectal cancer remains a considerable challenge in healthcare nowadays. Approximately 60%-80% of colorectal cancer is caused by intestinal polyps, and resection of intestinal polyps has been proved to reduce the incidence of colorectal cancer. The vast majority of intestinal polyps can be found during colonoscopy and removed endoscopically. Therefore, more attention has been paid to the development of endoscopic resection of intestinal polyps. In this study, we compared the efficacy and safety of cold snare polypectomy (CSP) and hot snare polypectomy (HSP).
aimTo investigate the efficacy and safety of CSP and HSP for colorectal polyps.
methodsBetween January and December 2020, 301 patients with colorectal polyps 4-9 mm in diameter were treated with endoscopic therapy in our hospital, and were divided into the CSP group (
resultsWe included 249 patients (301 polyps). No differences in gender, age, and polyp size, location, shape and type were observed between the CSP and HSP groups, and the resection rates in these two groups were 93.4% and 94.5%, respectively, with no significant difference. The use of titanium clips was 15.6% and 95.9%, the operating time was 3.2 ± 0.5 min and 5.6 ± 0.8 min, the delayed bleeding rate was 0% and 2.0%, and delayed perforation was 0% and 0.7%, in the CSP and HSP groups, respectively.
conclusionFor sessile colorectal polyps < 10 mm, CSP had the same resection rate of impaired tissue integrity as traditional HSP had. The rate of complications was lower in the CSP group. CSP is a safe and effective method for polypectomy.
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.