ReviewTranslational gastroenterology and hepatology2023
Withdrawal time in colonoscopy, past, present, and future, a narrative review.
Review in Translational gastroenterology and hepatology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Optimizing surveillance in Lynch syndrome: lesion detection and comparative performance of different colonoscopy modalities-a systematic review and network meta-analysis.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025Pooled it
- Association Between Colonoscopy Withdrawal Time and Adenoma Detection: Evidence of a Continuous Dose-Response Relationship.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Colonoscopy Quality Indicators in Transition: From Adenoma Detection Rate to Serrated Lesion Detection and Beyond.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Colorectal polyp prevalence and adenoma detection rates in an Iranian cohort: a prospective study.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Article
- Efficacy and safety of lubiprostone combined with polyethylene glycol electrolyte powder for bowel preparation in patients classified by risk level: a randomised trial.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Recent advance in early oral lesion diagnosis: the application of artificial intelligence-assisted endoscopy.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
- Colonoscopy is not mammography: Challenges of applying the Duty of Candor.Endoscopy international open · 2024Article
- Effect of computer aided detection device on the adenoma detection rate and serrated detection rate among trainee fellows.JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2024Article
- Longer Colonoscopy Withdrawal Time Is Associated With the Detection of Visible Dysplasia in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease.Crohn's & colitis 360 · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objective: Colonoscopy is a time proven, safe, and gold standard screening method for colorectal cancer (CRC). In order to achieve its objectives, quality markers have been defined for colonoscopy, including withdrawal time (WT). WT is defined as the time spent from reaching the cecum or terminal ileum till the end of procedure in colonoscopies without any additional interventions. This review aims to provide evidence on WT efficacy and future directions. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive literature search of articles evaluating WT. Search was limited to English language articles from all peer-reviewed journals. Key Content and Findings: The seminal study by Barclay Conclusions: In conclusion, new evidence demonstrates that WT of 9 minutes is better than 6 minutes. Future trends point toward an individualized AI-based approach combining real time and baseline data and guiding the endoscopist on how much time to spend in every segment of the colon in every colonoscopy procedure.
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.