Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39139219›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology2024

Post-polypectomy surveillance: follow-up recommendations from the Alberta Colorectal Cancer Screening Program.

Daniel C Sadowski, Michael R Kolber, Anthony Gomes, Linda Hickle, Robert Hilsden, David Ross McLean, Dereck Mok, Barbara Moysey, Nicole Nemecek, John David Ryan and 3 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07445178 (Piecemeal Resection and Advanced Histology Independently Predict Local Recurrence After Colorectal Snare-based Endoscopic Resection), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT07445178 completednot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Piecemeal Resection and Advanced Histology Independently Predict Local Recurrence After Colorectal Snare-based Endoscopic Resection: a Time-to-event Cohort Study

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity of Sao PauloRan2025 to 2026Enrolled255ConditionsColo-rectal Cancer
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

13 authors.

Daniel C SadowskiDivision of Gastroenterology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada, T6G 2X8.
Michael R KolberDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Alberta, Canada, T6G 2T4.
Anthony GomesCoaldale Colorectal Screening Program, Lethbridge, AB, Canada, T1M 1L2.
Linda HickleSCOPE Program, Alberta Health Services, Canada, T5J 0K1.
Robert HilsdenDepartment of Community Health Sciences and Department of Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada, T2N 4N1.
David Ross McLeanDepartment of Pathology, Royal Alexandra Hospital, Edmonton, Canada, T5H 3V9.
Dereck MokDivision of General Surgery, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada, T6G 2B7.
Barbara MoyseyAlberta Colorectal Cancer Screening Program, Alberta Health Services, Canada, T2S 3C3.
Nicole NemecekAlberta Colorectal Cancer Screening Program, Alberta Health Services, Canada, T2S 3C3.
John David RyanCentral Alberta Digestive Disease Specialists, Red Deer, Alberta, Canada, T4N 1C7.
Richard SultanianDivision of Gastroenterology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada, T6G 2X8.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1849-8236
Jessica WisemanAlberta Colorectal Cancer Screening Program, Alberta Health Services, Canada, T2S 3C3.
Huiming YangAlberta Colorectal Cancer Screening Program, Alberta Health Services, Canada, T2S 3C3.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In 2013, the Alberta Colorectal Cancer Screening Program (ACRCSP) initially published recommendations for post-colonoscopy follow-up and polypectomy. Over time, emerging evidence and evolving surveillance guidelines from various expert groups necessitated a comprehensive review to align with the healthcare landscape in Alberta. To accomplish this, an expert panel was convened. Using the Agree II tool, we identified high-quality Clinical Practice Guidelines that were relevant to the Alberta medical context. Recommendations from these guidelines were adapted to fit the specific needs of Alberta. Recognizing inconsistencies and gaps within the existing guidelines, we conducted targeted literature reviews to ensure a comprehensive and evidence-based approach to our recommendations. Our revised recommendations build upon the assumption that a high-quality index colonoscopy has been performed at baseline. They are intended to enhance the quality of care and reduce unnecessary procedures. As well, they align with the growing consensus in the scientific literature that individuals with low-risk tubular adenomas may not require aggressive colonoscopy surveillance. The updated Alberta recommendations aim to provide clear recommendations for practicing endoscopists, referring physicians, and their patients. They address crucial questions such as determining which patients should commence surveillance via colonoscopy and which individuals should return to average-risk screening using the fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Additionally, our recommendations outline the appropriate surveillance intervals for those requiring continued monitoring.

Indexed as

colonoscopypolypectomysurveillance

Identifiers

PMID39139219
PMCPMC11317626

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.