ArticleProceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center)2023
Utility of repeat colonoscopy within 1 year: a patient-level analysis.
Article in Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patients undergo colonoscopies for colorectal cancer screening and for the evaluation of gastrointestinal symptoms. Analysis of large administrative databases has demonstrated that some patients undergo repeat colonoscopies at intervals inconsistent with current recommendations, but these studies do not provide patient-level details. The medical records of 110 patients undergoing repeat colonoscopies within 1 year of their index colonoscopies at a tertiary care hospital-based endoscopy center were retrospectively reviewed to determine patient demographics, gastrointestinal symptoms, and endoscopic findings. Thirty-five patients had poor bowel preparations, and 11 patients had a history of colorectal cancer. Thirty-four patients had polyps identified during their index colonoscopies, and 28 patients had no polyps identified during their index colonoscopies. Eleven patients in the nonpolyp group had new endoscopic findings identified during the repeat colonoscopies. Twenty patients who had polyps identified on their index colonoscopies had 44 polyps identified on repeat colonoscopies. Repeat colonoscopies within 1 year occurred relatively infrequently in this endoscopy center. Indications included poor bowel preparation with incomplete studies, colonic polyps with incomplete resection, multiple polyps resulting in the possibility of missed polyps, and new gastrointestinal symptoms.
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.