Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37124132›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of clinical oncology2023

Current progress on the endoscopic features of colorectal sessile serrated lesions.

Rui-Gang Wang, Lai Wei, Bo Jiang

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of clinical oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Rui-Gang WangDepartment of Gastroenterology, Beijing Tsinghua Changgung Hospital, School of Clinical Medicine, Tsinghua University, Beijing 102218, China.
Lai WeiDepartment of Digestive Medicine, Beijing Tsinghua Changgung Hospital, School of Clinical Medicine, Tsinghua University, Beijing 102218, China.
Bo JiangDepartment of Gastroenterology, Beijing Tsinghua Changgung Hospital, School of Clinical Medicine, Tsinghua University, Beijing 102218, China. jba00920@btch.edu.cn.
Tsinghua University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Along with the discovery and refinement of serrated pathways, the World Health Organization amended the classification of digestive system tumors in 2019, recommending the renaming of sessile serrated adenomas/polyps to sessile serrated lesions (SSLs). Given the particularity of the endoscopic appearance of SSLs, it could easily be overlooked and missed in colonoscopy screening, which is crucial for the occurrence of interval colorectal cancer. Existing literature has found that adequate bowel preparation, reasonable withdrawal time, and awareness of colorectal SSLs have improved the quality and accuracy of detection. More particularly, with the continuous advancement and development of endoscopy technology, equipment, and accessories, a potent auxiliary tool is provided for accurate observation and immediate diagnosis of SSLs. High-definition white light endoscopy, chromoendoscopy, and magnifying endoscopy have distinct roles in the detection of colorectal SSLs and are valuable in identifying the size, shape, character, risk degree, and potential malignant tendency. This article delves into the relevant factors influencing the detection rate of colorectal SSLs, reviews its characteristics under various endoscopic techniques, and expects to attract the attention of colonoscopists.

Indexed as

Colorectal cancerEndoscopic featuresSessile serrated lesions

Identifiers

PMID37124132
PMCPMC10134204
OpenAlexW4366494822

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.