ArticleScientific reports2024
Comparison of cold snare endoscopic mucosal resection and hot snare endoscopic mucosal resection for small colorectal polyps: a randomized controlled trial.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Adenoma detection rates and complications of colonoscopy in patients aged 75 to 79 vs 70 to 74 years: Propensity score-matching study.Endoscopy international open · 2026Article
- Clinical analysis of coldWorld journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- Algorithmic approach for endoscopic management of colorectal polyps: an up-to-date review.Gastroenterology and hepatology from bed to bench · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Incomplete resection rates vary among endoscopists performing cold snare polypectomy. Cold snare endoscopic mucosal resection (CS-EMR) is the technique of cold resection after submucosal injection to reduce incomplete resection. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CS-EMR for small colorectal polyps compared to hot snare endoscopic mucosal resection (HS-EMR). Preplanned sample size required 70 polyps to CS-EMR group or HS-EMR group, respectively. Patients with polyps sized 6-9 mm were randomly allocated to either the CS-EMR or the HS-EMR group. The primary outcome was residual or recurrent adenoma (RAA) rate. A total of 70 and 68 polyps were resected using CS-EMR and HS-EMR, respectively. In the intention-to-treat population, the RAA rate was 0% in the CS-EMR group and 1.5% in the HS-EMR group (risk difference [RD], - 1.47; 95% confidence interval [CI] - 4.34 to 1.39). En bloc resection rate was 98.6% and 98.5% (RD, - 0.04; 95% CI - 4.12 to 4.02); the R0 resection rate was 55.7% and 82.4% (RD, - 27.80; 95% CI - 42.50 to - 13.10). The total procedure time was 172 s (IQR, 158-189) in the CS-EMR group and 186 s (IQR, 147-216) in the HS-EMR group (median difference, - 14; 95% CI - 32 to 2). Delayed bleeding was 2.9% vs 1.5% (RD, 1.37; 95% CI - 3.47 to 6.21) in both groups, respectively. CS-EMR was non-inferior to HS-EMR for the treatment of small colorectal polyps. CS-EMR can be considered one of the standard methods for the removal of colorectal polyps sized 6-9 mm.
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.