Trial reportEndoscopy2025
Optical assessment of scars after endoscopic mucosal resection of large colorectal polyps in a multicenter, community hospital setting: is routine biopsy still necessary?
Trial report in Endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Surveillance Outcomes in an Australian Cohort Undergoing Piecemeal Polypectomy for Conventional Adenomas and Serrated Lesions.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
26 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPiecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large (≥ 20 mm) nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) is succeeded by a 6-month surveillance endoscopy to evaluate the post-EMR scar for recurrence. Data from expert centers suggest that routine tattoo placement and scar biopsies can be omitted, but data from community hospitals are lacking.
methodsThe agreement between optical assessment and histological confirmation by routine biopsies was evaluated in a post-hoc analysis of the STAR-LNPCP study (NTR7477), containing prospective data on 6-month post-EMR scar assessments in 30 Dutch community hospitals (October 2019 to May 2022). A standardized protocol was followed for documentation of optical characteristics, imaging, and biopsy of the post-EMR scar.
resultsIn 1277 post-EMR scar assessments, identification of the scar was achieved in 1215/1277 (95 %). Tattoo placement did not influence scar identification. Scar biopsy was performed in 1050/1215 cases (86 %). Recurrences were seen in 200/1050 cases (19 %). There was good agreement between optical assessment of recurrence and histological confirmation (Cohen's kappa 0.78 [95 %CI 0.73-0.83]). The negative and positive predictive values were 98 % (95 %CI 97 %-99 %) and 74 % (95 %CI 68 %-80 %), respectively. A higher false-positive rate was seen after prior use of clips (11 % vs. 5 %;
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.