ArticlePloS one2025
Prognosis of extracolonic findings on clinical computed tomographic colonography: A single-center experience.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is crucial for colorectal cancer screening and secondary examinations, often revealing extracolonic findings with unclear significance. This study retrospectively evaluated the impact of such findings on the prognosis and management of 103 patients (mean observation period [OP]: 2183 days), categorized according to the CT Colonography Reporting and Data System (C-RADS). The distributions were 17% (mean OP: 2,821 days) for E1, 38% for E2 (2,759 days), 6% for E3 (2,150 days), and 39% for E4 (1,338 days). Eighteen patients were further examined, but no treatment-related changes were observed in the E2 or E3 cases. Six of nine E4 patients responded to treatment (mean OP: 1,286 days). Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed worse prognosis for E4 (mean survival: 10.1 years) than for E1-E3 combined (5.6 years) (p < 0.0001). E4 findings are key in guiding treatment. The concordance rate between the clinical (Past E) and revised (Revised E) categories was high (0.83, 95% confidence interval: 0.77-0.88). The prognoses differed significantly between Revised E1-E3 (mean survival: 10.0 years) and Revised E4 (6.2 years) (p < 0.0001). Although E4 significantly affects prognosis, E2 and E3 had limited effects on treatment, highlighting the need for further study to improve diagnostic accuracy.
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.