ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2023
Protocol design for randomized clinical trial to compare underwater cold snare polypectomy to conventional cold snare polypectomy for non-pedunculated colon polyps of size 5-10 mm (COLDWATER study).
Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05273697 (Randomized Clinical Trial to Compare Underwater Cold Snare Polypectomy), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Randomized Clinical Trial to Compare Underwater Cold Snare Polypectomy (UCSP) to Conventional Cold Snare Polypectomy (CCSP) for Non Pedunculated Colon Polyps of Size 5-10mm [COLDWATER Study]
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Different endoscopic treatments for small colorectal polyps: A systematic review, pair-wise, and network meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Results of the COLDWATER randomized controlled trial: enhanced performance of underwater cold snare polypectomy for colorectal polyps 5-10 mm, independent of endoscopist experience.Annals of gastroenterologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundColorectal cancer is internationally the third leading cause of death from a malignant disease. The aim of screening colonoscopy in adults > 45 years of age is early diagnosis and treatment of precancerous polyps. Endoscopic polyp removal (polypectomy) can be achieved with various techniques depending on the size, morphology, and location of the polyp. According to current guidelines, small non-pedunculated polyps should be removed with a cold snare after the colorectal lumen has been insufflated with air (conventional cold snare polypectomy).In recent years, several studies have described the benefits of water aided colonoscopy, as well as the safety and efficacy of underwater cold snare polypectomy for large colon polyps. However, there are insufficient data on conventional and underwater techniques for small polyps, the most commonly diagnosed colorectal polyps.
methodsWe have designed a prospective randomized double-blind clinical trial to compare the safety and efficacy of conventional and underwater cold snare polypectomy for non-pedunculated polyps 5-10 mm in size. A total of 398 polyps will be randomized. Randomization will be carried out using the random numbers method of Microsoft Excel 2016. The primary endpoint is the muscularis mucosa resection rate. Secondary endpoints are the depth and percentage of R0 excisions, complications, and the recurrence rate at follow-up endoscopy 6-12 months after polypectomy. DISCUSSION: We hypothesize underwater polypectomy will result in a higher muscularis mucosa resection rate. The results of our study will provide useful data for the development of guidelines in polypectomy techniques for non-pedunculated polyps 5-10 mm in size. CLINICAL
trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov, NCT05273697.
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.