ArticleBMJ open gastroenterology2025
Post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer and the association with endoscopic findings in the Danish colorectal cancer screening programme.
Article in BMJ open gastroenterology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Defining post-colon capsule endoscopy colorectal cancer (pCCECRC)-an International Capsule Endoscopy Research (iCARE) group consensus statement.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Evaluation of serrated lesion detection using different indicators: a single-centre, community-based, retrospective cohort study.BMJ open gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Computer-aided polyp detection and characterisation systems to support colonoscopy: a systematic review with results stratified by each individual artificial intelligence system.BMJ digital health & AI · 2026Article
- Clinical Evaluation of PolyDeep, A Computer-Aided Detection System: A Multicenter Randomized Tandem Colonoscopy Trial.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
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
objectiveColorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in Denmark, with a 5-year mortality of 40%. To reduce CRC incidence and mortality, a faecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based screening programme was introduced in 2014. Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is an established quality marker inversely associated with post-colonoscopy CRC (PCCRC), but evidence mainly stems from non-FIT populations. Using ADR in a FIT-based setting may be costly due to histopathological examination. Alternative markers like polyp detection rate (PDR) and sessile serrated lesion detection rate (SDR) could be viable but lack evidence for their association with PCCRC.
methodsWe conducted a nationwide cohort study of 77 009 FIT-positive participants undergoing colonoscopy (2014-2017). National registry data on CRC outcomes were linked, and endoscopy units were grouped by ADR, PDR and SDR levels. Poisson regression adjusted for age, sex and comorbidities was used to assess PCCRC risk.
resultsAmong 70 009 colonoscopies within 6 months of FIT positivity, 4401 (92.7%) had CRC, while 342 (7.2%) were PCCRC cases. PCCRC risk was inversely associated with ADR, PDR and SDR. High ADR endoscopy units had a 35% lower PCCRC risk than low ADR units. Similar associations were found for PDR and SDR, with high SDR units showing a 33% lower PCCRC risk than low SDR units.
conclusionsADR, PDR and SDR predict PCCRC risk, with SDR emerging as a feasible, cost-efficient quality marker in FIT-based screening. This study supports SDR as a primary performance indicator in future protocols.
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.