Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40192835›Full record

ReviewFamilial cancer2025

Guidelines for Familial Adenomatous Polyposis (FAP): challenges in defining clinical management for a rare disease.

Benjamin Zare, Kevin J Monahan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Familial cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Benjamin ZareDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8866-3209
Kevin J MonahanSt Mark's Centre for Familial Intestinal Cancer, St Mark's Hospital, London, UK. k.monahan@imperial.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-7918-4003

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent updated management guidelines for Familial Adenomatous Polyposis (FAP) have been published by professional bodies internationally. These recommendations reflect the diverse needs and capabilities of varying health systems worldwide, including thresholds for intervention and population health priorities. Whilst guidelines are closely aligned in many regards, there are areas of disparity. However, alongside discrepancies in guideline recommendations, common challenges also face professional bodies across the globe. Generation of a robust evidence-base in the environment of limited data is difficult in rare diseases such as FAP, underscored by the fact that expert consensus opinion underpins virtually all guidelines. The presence of a wide phenotypic spectrum in FAP and the other hereditary gastrointestinal polyposis syndromes, whilst now well recognised, further complicates the creation of universal recommendations. In this review we draw comparison between the various international guidelines for the management of FAP, using examples to focus on thematic areas of agreement and divergence. However, beyond this, we also wish to highlight the persisting evidence gaps in clinical management, and any areas of ongoing debate among clinicians, where we are yet to establish the optimal approach.

Indexed as

Adenomatous Polyposis ColiPractice Guidelines as TopicRare DiseasesHumansColorectal CancerEndoscopyGuidelinePolyposis

Identifiers

PMID40192835
PMCPMC11976741

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.