ArticleCureus2023
Adherence to Post-polypectomy Surveillance Guidelines at a Large District General Hospital.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Improving Postpolypectomy Surveillance Decisions Using an Automated Analysis of Colonoscopy and Histopathology Reports: 2-Center Validation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction In 2020, the British Society of Gastroenterologists (BSG), the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI), and Public Health England (PHE) published joint guidelines regarding post-polypectomy surveillance. This study aimed to establish clinician adherence at the Royal Devon University Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust to the 2020 guidelines compared to the now-retired 2010 guidelines. Materials and Methods Data on 152 patients treated under the 2010 guidelines and 133 patients treated under the 2020 guidelines were collected retrospectively from the hospital's colonoscopy database. Data were analysed to determine whether patients who had a colonoscopy fulfilled BSG/ACPGBI/PHE guidelines for follow-up. Costs were estimated using the price of colonoscopy in the NHS National Schedule. Results Approximately 41.4% (63/152) of patients were adherent to the 2010 guidelines while 66.2% (88/133) of patients were adherent to the 2020 guidelines. The difference in adherence rate was 24.7% (95% confidence interval 13.5% - 35.9%, p<0.0001). Nearly 37% (35/95) of patients who would have been followed up under the 2010 guidelines did not receive any follow-up as a result of the 2020 guidelines. This represents a cost saving of £36,892.28 per year in our hospital. Approximately 47% (28/60) of patients treated under the 2020 guidelines had surveillance colonoscopy planned when the guidelines recommended no follow-up. If every clinician were fully adherent to the 2020 guidelines, then a further £29,513.82 per year would have been saved. Discussion and Conclusion Following the introduction of the 2020 guidelines, adherence to polyp surveillance guidelines increased in our hospital. However, nearly half of the colonoscopies were performed unnecessarily due to non-adherence. Furthermore, our results demonstrate that the 2020 guidelines have decreased the need for follow-up.
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.