ArticleClinical endoscopy2024
Cold snare polypectomy versus cold endoscopic mucosal resection for small colorectal polyps: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Article in Clinical endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cost-Minimization and Procedural Outcomes of Cold Snare Versus Cold Forceps Polypectomy for Small Colorectal Polyps: A Prospective Cohort Study Using Real Institutional Pricing.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Histopathologic outcomes comparison between cold snare polypectomy and cold snare EMR for colorectal polyps: a full-thickness serial sectioning analysis.Gastroenterology report · 2026Article
- Does the size of the cold snare affect the outcome of cold snare polypectomy in the colon? A KASID prospective multicenter study.Intestinal research · 2026Article
- Recent advancement in size measurement during endoscopy.Clinical endoscopy · 2026Review
- Iatrogenic colon perforation: endoscopic management or surgery.Clinical endoscopy · 2026Review
- Efficacy and safety ranking of endoscopic resection techniques for colorectal polyps: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsCold snare polypectomy (CSP) is routinely performed for small colorectal polyps (≤10 mm). However, challenges include insufficient resection depth and immediate bleeding, hindering precise pathological evaluation. We aimed to compare the outcomes of cold endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) with that of CSP for colorectal polyps ≤10 mm, using data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
methodsMultiple databases were searched in December 2023 for RCTs reporting outcomes of CSP versus CEMR for colorectal polyps ≤10 mm in size. Our primary outcomes were rates of complete and en-bloc resections, while our secondary outcomes were total resection time (seconds) and adverse events, including immediate bleeding, delayed bleeding, and perforation.
resultsThe complete resection rates did not significantly differ (CSP, 91.8% vs. CEMR 94.6%), nor did the rates of en-bloc resection (CSP, 98.9% vs. CEMR, 98.3%) or incomplete resection (CSP, 6.7% vs. CEMR, 4.8%). Adverse event rates were similarly insignificant in variance. However, CEMR had a notably longer mean resection time (133.51 vs. 91.30 seconds).
conclusionsOur meta-analysis of seven RCTs showed that while both CSP and CEMR are equally safe and effective for resecting small (≤10 mm) colorectal polyps, the latter is associated with a longer resection time.
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.