Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39080790›Full record

SynthesisJournal of gastroenterology and hepatology2024

Systematic review: risk prediction models for metachronous advanced colorectal neoplasia after polypectomy.

James H-E Kang, Emma Levine, Alex Fleet, Mc Stephen Padilla, Jeffrey K Lee, Hannah Harrison, Juliet A Usher-Smith

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Predictors of metachronous advanced colorectal adenoma after polypectomy.Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA · 2025
    Article
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

7 authors.

James H-E KangDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9635-7343
Emma LevineUniversity of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Alex FleetDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3225-4163
Mc Stephen PadillaDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Jeffrey K LeeKaiser Permanente Northern California Division of Research, Oakland, California, USA.
Hannah HarrisonDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Juliet A Usher-SmithDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Funding

National Institute for Health and Care Research NIHR300861National Institute for Health and Care Research NIHR303274
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimColorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth leading cause of cancer death globally. CRC surveillance is a common indication for colonoscopy, representing a considerable burden for endoscopy services. Accurate identification of high-risk patients who would benefit from more intensive surveillance, as well as low-risk patients suitable for less frequent follow-up, could improve the effectiveness of surveillance protocols and resource use. Our aim was to identify and critically appraise published risk models for the occurrence of metachronous advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN), defined here as CRC or advanced adenomas detected during surveillance colonoscopy.

methodsWe searched PubMed and EMBASE for primary research studies reporting the development and/or validation of multivariable models that predict metachronous ACN risk. Screening of studies for inclusion, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were conducted by two researchers independently.

resultsWe identified nine studies describing nine risk models. Six models were internally validated and two were externally validated. No model underwent both internal and external validation. Good model discrimination (concordance index > 0.7) was reported for two models during internal validation and for one model during external validation. Calibration was acceptable when assessed (n = 4). Methodological limitations and a high risk of bias were observed for all studies.

conclusionsSeveral published models predicting metachronous ACN risk showed some promise. However, adherence to methodological standards was limited, and only two models were externally validated. Head-to-head comparisons of existing models using populations independent from model development cohorts should be prioritized to identify models suitable for use in clinical practice.

Indexed as

ColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsNeoplasms, Second PrimaryAdenomaColonic PolypsHumansModels, StatisticalRiskRisk AssessmentRisk Factorscancer screeningcolonoscopycolorectal cancer

Identifiers

PMID39080790
PMCPMC11660205

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.